Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

AL-KAWAZ v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE

District of ColumbiaRudolph ContrerasDecided June 26, 2025No. 1:24-cv-01792

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,914 written decisions from 2,661 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 1:24 a.m. CT; the Passim connector counts the live collection, which can differ by the day's additions and retirements (which total to quote). Coverage: of the 1,606 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,371 (85%), measured November 3, 2026. Some of what that search finds are not mandamus decisions. Tell us about a decision we're missing.

These are counts of past written decisions and dockets, not predictions of how any case will be decided. A distribution appears only when at least 5 decisions (or 5 dockets) are behind it; smaller groups are listed, not summarized. How it's counted.

What the decision decided

Each value cites the passage it was read from. Values read by a model were checked against that passage; values read by rule come from fixed text patterns. Read the decision before relying on either.

Agency Department of State Read by a model
Sundus Shawqi Ibraheem Al-Kawaz and Ahmed Basim Altai (“Plaintiffs”) brought this action seeking to compel the United States Department of State and Secretary of State Marco Rubio1 (“Defendants”) to adjudicate Ms. Al-Kawaz’s visa application.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
She applied for a visa in September 2021 and had a consular interview in Ankara, Turkey, on November 8, 2022.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
On June 21, 2024, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit to “compel action” on Ms. Al-Kawaz’s visa application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
The Court will therefore dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
The Court will therefore dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiffs have not identified a clear and non-discretionary duty, so their claims for relief under the APA (Count I) and the Mandamus Act (Count II) must be dismissed.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
The Court will therefore dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).
Months pending 33.2 months from the application to the suit; 45.3 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
She applied for a visa in September 2021 and had a consular interview in Ankara, Turkey, on November 8, 2022.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings No duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal Read by a model
So neither 22 U.S.C. § 42.81(a) nor 5 U.S.C. § 555(b) creates a “crystal-clear” obligation for Defendants to re-adjudicate Ms. Al-Kawaz’s visa application.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Ms. Al-Kawaz is an Iranian citizen
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Ms. Al-Kawaz is an Iranian citizen married to Mr. Altai, a U.S. citizen.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-01792
Filed
June 21, 2024
Ended
June 27, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
371 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why. Other suits in this court.

Supreme Court and D.C. Circuit authority

District decisions bind no one. On the questions this decision raises, the Supreme Court decisions and the circuit's published decisions listed here bind this court; a circuit disposition marked nonprecedential was not published as precedent and is persuasive only. ImmCite status as read November 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.