Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

KHAN v. SCHOFER et al

District of ColumbiaRoyce C. LamberthDecided March 31, 2025No. 1:24-cv-00271

Read the decisionOriginal on GovInfo

2,917 written decisions from 2,664 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 7:07 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
He was interviewed at the United States Embassy in Pakistan in May 2023, and following the interview, Mr. Khan’s application was put into “administrative processing.”
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
In May 2023, Mr. Khan applied for a J1 visa
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
He was interviewed at the United States Embassy in Pakistan in May 2023, and following the interview, Mr. Khan’s application was put into “administrative processing.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the following reasons, the Court will GRANT the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
On March 27, 2024, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), and failure to state a claim, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On March 27, 2024, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will GRANT the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
However, Defendants still prevail overall.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The Court concludes that Defendants are entitled to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) because Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly allege unreasonable delay of Mr. Khan’s visa application.
Months pending 8.5 months from the application to the suit; 22.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
In May 2023, Mr. Khan applied for a J1 visa
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 applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
Overall, TRAC factors 1, 2, and 4 weigh in Defendants’ favor; TRAC factors 3 and 5 weigh in Mr. Khan’s favor; and TRAC factor 6 is at best neutral for Mr. Khan.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
This factor favors Defendants because granting Mr. Khan’s “requested relief would simply move them ahead in the processing queue to the detriment of other similarly situated visa applicants.”
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected Read by a model
Regarding arguments (2) and (3), this Court has repeatedly rejected these arguments and will do so again here.
Nationality Pakistan Read by a model
Mr. Khan is a citizen of and resides in Pakistan

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-00271
Filed
January 30, 2024
Ended
April 1, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
427 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.