Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Khan v. Blinken

District of ColumbiaJames E. BoasbergDecided November 17, 2021No. 1:21-cv-01683

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 fundamental problem with such a claim is that DHS is not the agency delaying visa adjudication; according to Plaintiff herself , that is the State Department and its embassy in Riyadh.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
Kamil then applied for a visa and interviewed at the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia ,in January 2021.Id. , ¶¶ 7–8. Following the interview, the Embassy informed him that his visa application was being placed under “administrative processing.”
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Plaintiff maintains that she “is not asking for her fiancé to be put ahead in line of others” because he is already “at the front of the line, simply awaiting the consular officer’s completion of administrative processing.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants now move to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants now move 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
For the reasons stated above, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiff never makes clear what the legal basis for this count actually is —e.g., the APA, the Constitution, or something else. It thus cannot proceed.
Months pending 5 months from the application to the suit; 10.1 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Kamil then applied for a visa and interviewed at the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia ,in January 2021.
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, which courts gener ally consider together, favor the Government .
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Processing capacity is presently a zero-sum game, and granting Plaintiff’s request to expedite would necessarily mean additional delays for other applicants
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:21-cv-01683
Filed
June 23, 2021
Ended
November 17, 2021
Suit's filing to its end
147 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.