Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

IBRAHIM v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

District of ColumbiaBeryl Alaine HowellDecided April 8, 2020No. 1:19-cv-00610

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 requested, however, that the Zabens “provide additional information” necessary to evaluate their applications, id., and indicated that their applications were placed in “administrative processing,” Compl. ¶ 2.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
“a writ of mandamus directing the Consulate to render a decision either granting or denying Mr. and Ms. Zaben’s Immigrant Visa applications pursuant to 22 C.F.R. § 42.81(a).”
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
They therefore seek “a writ of mandamus directing the Consulate to render a decision either granting or denying Mr. and Ms. Zaben’s Immigrant Visa applications pursuant to 22 C.F.R. § 42.81(a).”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 15, is granted in part and denied in part.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On February 7, 2020, before the expiration of the most recently granted extension, the defendants moved to dismiss this action
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
The plaintiffs’ claims are dismissed as they pertain to Mr. Zaben’s visa application, but not as they pertain to Ms. Zaben’s.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
The plaintiffs’ claims are dismissed as they pertain to Mr. Zaben’s visa application, but not as they pertain to Ms. Zaben’s.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
The plaintiffs’ claims are dismissed as they pertain to Mr. Zaben’s visa application, but not as they pertain to Ms. Zaben’s.
Months pending 56.7 months from the application to the suit; 69.9 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On June 12, 2014, Mr. and Ms. Zaben were interviewed at the Consulate.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability applied; Consular nonreviewability rejected; Mootness argument rejected Read by a model
The defendants are therefore entitled to dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims as they pertain to Mr. Zaben’s application.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
As noted, Ibrahim is a United States citizen and the daughter of Mr. and Ms. Zaben, who are residents of the Israeli territories.

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
IBRAHIM v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATEThis decision April 8, 2020 Beryl Alaine Howell Dismissed in part; some claims go on
IBRAHIM v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATEThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted May 26, 2020 Beryl Alaine Howell Denied in the government's favor

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:19-cv-00610
Filed
March 5, 2019
Ended
April 20, 2021
Suit's filing to its end
777 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 12 (dismissed: voluntarily)

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.