Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

ARAMNAHAD v. BLINKEN

District of ColumbiaMoxila A. UpadhyayaDecided March 31, 2025No. 1:24-cv-01817

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
Indeed, the Government informed this Court at a November 21, 2024 status conference that the consular officer here purported to refuse Plaintiffs’ visa application and place it in administrative processing to secure a security AO response.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiffs seek only to compel the Defendants to make a final decision on their pending immigrant visa application.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
On June 24, 2024, Plaintiffs filed this Complaint seeking mandamus and declaratory and injunctive relief to compel the Government to adjudicate their visa application within twenty-one days.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Government’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6) is DENIED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
The Government moves to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The Government moves to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (b)(6).
Disposition Denied in the applicant's favor The principal motion was denied in full: a motion to dismiss denied so the case goes on, or relief denied on the merits. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Government’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6) is DENIED.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Government’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6) is DENIED.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Government’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6) is DENIED.
The other claims Not decided here Read by a model
Because the Government does not challenge Count I specifically, and “absent briefing from the parties, the Court declines to rule on” Count I now.
Months pending 14.9 months from the application to the suit; 24 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On March 30, 2023, Plaintiffs interviewed with a consular officer at the United States embassy in Guangzhou, China.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found Read by a model
Accordingly, at this stage, Plaintiffs have stated a claim because “the consular nonreviewability doctrine applies only to final decisions and thus does not bar judicial review of a consular officer’s delay when a visa application has been provisionally refused pending a final decision.”
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Plaintiffs Mohammad Aramnahad (“Aramnahad”), an Iranian national

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
ARAMNAHAD v. BLINKENThis decision March 31, 2025 Moxila A. Upadhyaya Denied in the applicant's favor
Aramnahad v. BlinkenThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted December 22, 2025 Moxila A. Upadhyaya Dismissed as moot

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-01817
Filed
June 24, 2024
Ended
December 23, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
547 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
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.