Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

MAHMOODI v. BAKER et al

District of ColumbiaBeryl A. HowellDecided March 11, 2025No. 1:24-cv-02010

Read the decisionOriginal on GovInfo

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
Marco Rubio, Secretary of the U.S. Department of State, in their official capacities (collectively, “defendants”), to adjudicate his nonimmigrant visa application
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
Both plaintiff and his wife submitted their DS-160 nonimmigrant visa applications shortly thereafter and attended an interview at the U.S. Embassy in Qatar on March 7, 2024.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
to adjudicate his nonimmigrant visa application, for which his wife is a derivative beneficiary, when the application had been in administrative processing
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint is granted, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim of unreasonable delay
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted sua sponte on grounds not presented because defendants intentionally ignored them.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
Months pending 4.1 months from the application to the suit; 12.1 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Both plaintiff and his wife submitted their DS-160 nonimmigrant visa applications shortly thereafter and attended an interview at the U.S. Embassy in Qatar on March 7, 2024.
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 needednot reached
Read by a model
The first and second TRAC factors weigh in defendants’ favor
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
the circumstances alleged here are insufficient to prioritize the processing of their visa applications over many other individuals and families facing similarly difficult circumstances as they await immigration decisions.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Plaintiff MohammadBagher Mahmoodi, a citizen of Iran residing in Oman

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-02010
Filed
July 10, 2024
Ended
March 12, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
245 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.