Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Zaman v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

District of ColumbiaAmy Berman JacksonDecided November 16, 2021

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
Because consular officers have exclusive authority to review visa applications, this Court cannot adjudicate the immigration visa petitions under its declaratory judgment authority as plaintiff has requested.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Defendants assert that plaintiff’s parents’ applications “remain[] refused under INA 221(g).” Howard Decl. ¶¶ 6, 7. When an IR-5 visa is pending under INA 221(g), the consular officer may, among other actions, submit the petition to USCIS for reconsideration.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Plaintiff asks the Court to issue a writ of mandamus ordering either the issuance of the immigrant visas or ordering defendants to complete all administrative proceedings within sixty days.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For these reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss, [Dkt. # 14], will be GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), defendants have moved to dismiss plaintiff’s claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
For these reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss, [Dkt. # 14], will be GRANTED.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For these reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss, [Dkt. # 14], will be GRANTED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For these reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss, [Dkt. # 14], will be GRANTED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For these reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss, [Dkt. # 14], will be GRANTED.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Therefore, the Court will dismiss plaintiff’s constitutional claim.
Months pending 19.4 months from the application to the suit; 42.9 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
his parents’ visa interviews were conducted on or about April 19, 2018.
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
For these reasons, the Court finds that the first and second TRAC factors weigh in favor of defendants.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Since granting the relief plaintiff seeks would move his parents’ applications ahead of other individuals in similarly difficult circumstances, the Court finds that this factor weighs in favor of defendants.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Mootness argument rejected Read by a model
Because the suit challenges agency inaction, as opposed to a decision taken within the consul’s discretion, plaintiff’s claims should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
On November 28, 2016, plaintiff filed I-130 IR-5 visa petitions with USCIS for his parents, Ms. Habib and Mr. Rahman.

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.