Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

ASHTARI v. POMPEO

District of ColumbiaAmit P. MehtaDecided October 23, 2020No. 1:19-cv-03797

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,917 written decisions from 2,664 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 7:07 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
Furthermore, as discussed, the State Department has adopted policies that commit the agency to deciding a qualified person’s eligibility for a waiver.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Mr. Ashtari’s visa application was sent to the U.S. Embassy in Ankara, Turkey, for processing
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
what Plaintiffs really seek here is to compel a decision on Mr. Ashtari’s waiver eligibility.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 9, and Plaintiffs’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 11, are denied.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Summary judgment Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 9, and Plaintiffs’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 11, are denied.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 9, and Plaintiffs’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 11, are denied.
Disposition Denied, each side in part The principal motion was denied in full: a motion to dismiss denied so the case goes on, or relief denied on the merits. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 9, and Plaintiffs’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 11, are denied.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 9, and Plaintiffs’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 11, are denied.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Finally, because the court finds that Plaintiffs have stated a claim under the APA, it need not address Plaintiffs’ mandamus claim at this time.
Months pending 39.9 months from the application to the suit; 50 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
where he appeared for a visa interview on August 24, 2016
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
And, based on the limited facts before the court, it is not entirely clear that Plaintiffs seek anything more than a “judicial reordering[] of agency priorities.”
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Mootness argument rejected Read by a model
Because a decision on Mr. Ashtari’s waiver eligibility remains pending, Plaintiffs’ claims are neither moot nor barred by the doctrine of consular nonreviewability.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
her Iranian parents, Plaintiffs Abdollah Ashtari and Saedeh Mozaffari
212(f) proclamation Proclamation 9645 Read by a model
this new vetting system is specifically designed to address the national-security prong of Proclamation 9645’s waiver criteria
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
On February 18, 2015, Plaintiff Sanaz Ashtari, a U.S. citizen residing in Texas, initiated the legal process required to bring her Iranian parents, Plaintiffs Abdollah Ashtari and Saedeh Mozaffari, to the United States.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:19-cv-03797
Filed
December 20, 2019
Ended
May 10, 2021
Suit's filing to its end
507 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 13 (dismissed: settled)

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.