Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

MOGHADAM v. RUBIO

District of ColumbiaCarl J. NicholsDecided June 11, 2026No. 1:25-cv-04232

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
Plaintiff Arash Moghadam is a dual citizen and national of Germany and Iran whose application for an immigrant visa was refused by a consular officer pursuant to INA Section 221(g) and then placed into “administrative processing.”
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiff Arash Moghadam is a dual citizen and national of Germany and Iran whose application for an immigrant visa was refused by a consular officer pursuant to INA Section 221(g) and then placed into “administrative processing.”
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
But Moghadam alleges that the government is unreasonably delaying the adjudication of his visa application and seeks an order compelling such an adjudication.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
It will instead dismiss this suit because, as discussed above, Moghadam has not demonstrated that the government has a duty to take any further action with respect to his visa application.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The government argues that Moghadam thus cannot show that the government “failed to take a discrete agency action that [they were] required to take,” as required for injunctive relief under either the APA or the Mandamus Act.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
It will instead dismiss this suit because, as discussed above, Moghadam has not demonstrated that the government has a duty to take any further action with respect to his visa application.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
It will instead dismiss this suit because, as discussed above, Moghadam has not demonstrated that the government has a duty to take any further action with respect to his visa application.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
It will instead dismiss this suit because, as discussed above, Moghadam has not demonstrated that the government has a duty to take any further action with respect to his visa application.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings No duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal Read by a model
It will instead dismiss this suit because, as discussed above, Moghadam has not demonstrated that the government has a duty to take any further action with respect to his visa application.
Nationality Germany Read by a model
Plaintiff Arash Moghadam is a dual citizen and national of Germany and Iran

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-04232
Filed
December 5, 2025
Ended
June 11, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
188 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.