Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Ghadami v. United States Department of Homeland Security

District of ColumbiaAmy Berman JacksonDecided March 19, 2020

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
A ccording to the government, the consular office has made a preliminary determination that the personal hardship and national interest prongs of the waiver have been met, but it is still deciding whether the national security prong can be cleared.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Sara’s father then filed Form DS-260 in December of 2016, Compl. ¶ 20, and he had an interview with a consular officer on July 27, 2017.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
They request relief in the form of a declaratory judgment that defendants have violated the law and a writ of mandamus compelling defendants to promptly complete administrative processing and to issue a visa to Ghadamy.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
The Court finds that it has jurisdiction to review plaintiffs’ claims but that th ey have failed to state a claim for relief. Thus, it will grant defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On June 7, 2019, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
In light of these factors, the Court finds that plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under the APA for an unreasonable delay.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.
Months pending 26 months from the application to the suit; 39.1 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Sara’s father then filed Form DS-260 in December of 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 of the TRAC factors – relating to “the rule of reason” and whether Congress has provided a timetable for agency action – weigh in favor of the government.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
But, the fourth TRAC factor – whether expediting action in this case would harm other agency activities of equal or greater priority – weighs in favor of the government.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Mootness argument rejected Read by a model
Thus, the doctrine of consular nonreviewability does not bar the Court from considering whether the government has unreasonably delayed issuing a decision.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Ali Akbar Ghadamy, (“Ghadamy”) an Iranian citizen .
212(f) proclamation Proclamation 9645 Read by a model
This leaves plaintiffs’ claim insofar as it alleg es an unreasonable delay in adjudicating Ghadamy’s waiver of the restrictions set forth in Presidential Proclamation 9645.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Plaintiff Sara Ghadami (“Sara”) is a U.S. citizen. Compl. ¶ 1. On May 17, 2016, she filed a Petition for Alien Relative (Form I-130) for her father, Ali Akbar Ghadamy, (“Ghadamy”) an Iranian citizen .

How the case ended

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

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.