Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

MAKTTOOF v. BLINKEN

District of ColumbiaJohn D. BatesDecided March 27, 2025No. 1:24-cv-01344

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
Makttoof claims she has experienced an unreasonable delay and asks this Court to order State Department officials to render a final decision on her application.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Approximately two years have passed since Vian Abdulkareem Makttoof’s consular interview seeking an immigrant visa, and her visa application remains in a bureaucratic purgatory known as “administrative processing.”
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Makttoof claims she has experienced an unreasonable delay and asks this Court to order State Department officials to render a final decision on her application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
ORDERED that [11] the defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
For the above reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that [11] the defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED;
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
ORDERED that [11] the 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
and it is further ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
But while the defendants’ threshold defenses fail, their merits defense succeeds: the nearly two-year delay in rendering a final decision on Makttoof’s immigrant visa application is not unreasonable.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
Months pending 13.3 months from the application to the suit; 23.9 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Her application became documentarily complete with the NVC in early 2023 and she completed an interview at the U.S. Embassy in Ankara, Turkey on March 30, 2023.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the applicant
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
The first factor—whether the agency’s response time is governed by a “rule of reason”—favors State because “processing visas takes a baseline amount of time.”
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
The fourth factor, the effect on competing agency priorities, also strongly favors the defendants.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found Read by a model
The consular non-reviewability doctrine does not bar judicial intervention here.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Makttoof’s U.S.-citizen husband filed a Form I-130 on her behalf, and USCIS approved it in January 2023.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-01344
Filed
May 8, 2024
Ended
March 27, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
323 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.