Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Massachusetts

Ahadian v. Blinken

District of MassachusettsAllison Dale BurroughsDecided June 6, 2025No. 1:24-cv-12168

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
Considering that Fathollahzade provided additional information through the DS-5535, the plain terms of the regulation suggest that the Department of State has a duty to reconsider.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
on September 12, 2022, Plaintiffs paid the appropriate immigrant visa processing fee and timely submitted the DS-260 along with supporting documentation to the NVC.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
At issue here, however, is not whether the Court can review a final visa adjudication, but rather whether the Court can compel Defendants to adjudicate a visa application during administrative processing.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss, [ECF No. 15], is GRANTED without prejudice.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
The Court will therefore review the unreasonable delay claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint on December 19. 2024
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss, [ECF No. 15], is GRANTED without prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss, [ECF No. 15], is GRANTED without prejudice.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss, [ECF No. 15], is GRANTED without prejudice.
Months pending 23.4 months from the application to the suit; 32.8 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
on September 12, 2022, Plaintiffs paid the appropriate immigrant visa processing fee and timely submitted the DS-260 along with supporting documentation to the NVC.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
The first and second TRAC factors, in other words, do not support a finding of unreasonable delay.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
As to the first factor, for visa applications, courts have generally found that an agency’s process is governed by a “rule of reason,” namely adjudicating them “in the order they were filed.”
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Plaintiff Fathollahzadeh, an Iranian national
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Plaintiff Ahadian, a U.S. citizen, filed an I-130 visa petition on behalf of her husband, Plaintiff Fathollahzadeh, an Iranian national, on or about June 22, 2021.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-12168
Filed
August 23, 2024
Ended
June 9, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
290 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 First 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.