Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

KHABOSHAN v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

District of ColumbiaSparkle L. SooknananDecided October 26, 2026No. 1:26-cv-00092

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
The consular officer refused their applications under Section 221(g) and placed them in administrative processing.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Hasan Najafi Khaboshan and Elnaz Yousefi, Iranian nationals living in Malaysia, brought this action to compel a decision on their immigrant visa applications.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Those Plaintiffs originally asked the Court to compel a decision on their visa applications.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint, ECF No. 22.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
The Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
The Court dismisses Mr. Najafi Khaboshan’s and Ms. Yousefi’s unreasonable-delay claims under Rule 12(b)(1) as moot
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The Court therefore grants the Defendants’ motion and dismisses this case.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The Court dismisses Mr. Najafi Khaboshan’s and Ms. Yousefi’s unreasonable-delay claims under Rule 12(b)(1) as moot, and their challenges to their individual refusals and E.N.K.’s unreasonable-delay claim under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
The Court dismisses Mr. Najafi Khaboshan’s and Ms. Yousefi’s unreasonable-delay claims under Rule 12(b)(1) as moot, and their challenges to their individual refusals and E.N.K.’s unreasonable-delay claim under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
Months pending 22.5 months from the application to the suit The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
Mr. Najafi Khaboshan and Ms. Yousefi attended a consular interview at the U.S. Embassy in Kuala Lumpur (the Embassy) in February 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 applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
Here, the first two factors favor the Government.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
But TRAC factor four favors the Defendants because E.N.K.’s requested relief amounts to queue jumping.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability applied; Held moot Read by a model
In sum, Mr. Najafi Khaboshan’s and Ms. Yousefi’s challenges to their Section 212(f) visa refusals are barred by consular nonreviewability.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Hasan Najafi Khaboshan and Elnaz Yousefi are Iranian nationals who have lived in Malaysia since October 2021.
212(f) proclamation Proclamation 10998 Read by a model
consular officers refused the applications under Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), pursuant to Proclamation 10998

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:26-cv-00092
Filed
January 1, 2026
Status
Pending as of the last docket check

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.