Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

BAGHERIAN v. POMPEO

District of ColumbiaJohn D. BatesDecided February 11, 2020No. 1:19-cv-01049

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
On January 4, 2018, the Embassy emailed Abbasi and informed her that “a consular officer found [her] ineligible for a visa under Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, pursuant to Presidential Proclamation 9645.”
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
After her interview, the officer informed her that her “visa application is temporarily refused under section 221(g) of the US Immigration and Nationality Act,” pending the completion of administrative processing.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
She seeks a declaratory judgment under the APA directing the government to “complete administrative processing and render a decision on Plaintiffs’ visa petition.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant the government’s motion to dismiss.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
The government has moved to dismiss, arguing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and under Rule 12(b)(6) that Abbasi has failed to state a claim.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Now before the Court is the government’s motion to dismiss.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the reasons explained below, the Court will grant the motion and dismiss the case.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant the government’s motion to dismiss.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the reasons explained below, the Court will grant the motion and dismiss the case.
Months pending 28.5 months from the application to the suit; 38.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Abbasi made it past the first several steps in this process: her petition was approved and forwarded on to the U.S. Embassy in Yerevan, Armenia, and a consular officer there interviewed her on November 29, 2016.
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
The first two factors, relating to whether Congress has imposed a timeline for the agency action, heavily favor the government.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Expediting review in Abbasi’s case, then, would merely pull government resources from the adjudication of other applicants’ waiver eligibility and direct those resources to Abbasi’s case;
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Mootness argument rejected Read by a model
Here, because the Court concludes that the doctrine does not apply, there is no need to wade into this debate.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
He is engaged to Abbasi, an Iranian national.
212(f) proclamation Proclamation 9645 Read by a model
On January 4, 2018, the Embassy emailed Abbasi and informed her that “a consular officer found [her] ineligible for a visa under Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, pursuant to Presidential Proclamation 9645.”

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:19-cv-01049
Filed
April 14, 2019
Ended
February 11, 2020
Suit's filing to its end
303 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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.