Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

ASGHARI v. RUBIO et al

District of ColumbiaJia M. CobbDecided March 31, 2026

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
On October 27, 2023, the U.S. Embassy and Consulate in Ankara, Turkey interviewed him.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
The thrust of Plaintiff’s claim is clear: She argues that there is a non-discretionary duty to adjudicate her father’s immigrant visa application.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Plaintiff argues that Defendants are required to complete the processing of her father’s visa application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court will GRANT Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
In their Rule 12(b)(6) motion, Defendants move to dismiss this case on several grounds.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants have moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims on various grounds.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, ECF 4, is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, ECF 4, is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, ECF 4, is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.
Months pending 18.9 months from the application to the suit; 29.1 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On October 27, 2023, the U.S. Embassy and Consulate in Ankara, Turkey interviewed him.
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
As such, these factors weigh in favor of Defendants.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
the fact that others were interviewed after but adjudicated before [an applicant] does not, without other information, mean that Defendants are not adhering to the first-in, first-out rule, as different applications may require different time and attention
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found Read by a model
The consular nonreviewability doctrine does not apply here because Plaintiff’s claims are based on Defendants’ failure to render a decision on the application; Plaintiff does not seek judicial review of any consular officer’s final determination.

How the case ended

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

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.