Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

AL IBRAHIM v. RUBIO

District of ColumbiaSparkle L. SooknananDecided November 12, 2026No. 1:25-cv-03908

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,996 written decisions from 2,731 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided November 12, 2026. Updated November 14, 2026 at 1:17 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 1,617 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,406 (87%), 1,039 of them in this group, measured November 14, 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 Plaintiffs sued the Secretary of State and the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh to compel the processing of their applications.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
“The applicant must then pay a fee and complete additional paperwork, including Form DS-260 (the Electronic Application for Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration).”
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Invoking the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Plaintiffs ask this Court to compel the Defendants to adjudicate their visa applications.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Although the Court recognizes the hardship that the Plaintiffs have faced because of the extended delay, it must grant the Defendants’ motion and dismiss the case.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
The Defendants have moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The Defendants have moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Although the Court recognizes the hardship that the Plaintiffs have faced because of the extended delay, it must grant the Defendants’ motion and dismiss the case.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Although the Court recognizes the hardship that the Plaintiffs have faced because of the extended delay, it must grant the Defendants’ motion and dismiss the case.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Although the Court recognizes the hardship that the Plaintiffs have faced because of the extended delay, it must grant the Defendants’ motion and dismiss the case.
Months pending 37.4 months from the application to the suit; 49.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
The U.S. Embassy in Riyadh interviewed the family on October 5, 2022.
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
Thus, the first and second TRAC factors favor the Defendants.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
And here, untold numbers of applicants may be in the same position as the Plaintiffs, such that pushing their case to the front of the line would have little net effect. Thus, the fourth factor weighs in favor of the Defendants.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Saudi Arabia Read by a model
In November 2018, Ms. Al Ibrahim submitted I-130 petitions to USCIS on behalf of her husband, Ali Hassan A. Al Faraj, and their two minor children, T.A. and Z.A., all Saudi nationals.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Rana Jaafar Al Ibrahim is a United States citizen who resides in Saudi Arabia with her family. Am. Compl. ¶ 7, ECF No. 8. In November 2018, Ms. Al Ibrahim submitted I-130 petitions to USCIS on behalf of her husband, Ali Hassan A. Al Faraj

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-03908
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 16)
Filed
November 11, 2025
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.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.