Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Khan v. Blome

District of ColumbiaJames E. BoasbergDecided November 29, 2022No. 1:22-cv-02422

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 Department of State administers the J -1 exchange-visitor program by designating various public and private organizations as sponsoring entities.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
she must then complete Form DS-160 (the Online Nonimmigrant Visa Application ), submit biometric data, and attend an interview with a Department of State consular officer to determine eligibility for the visa.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
He conten ds that the seven months that he has waited for his visa to be issued or finally refused constitute an unlawful delay and asks the Court to order the Government Defendants to act.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss invokes Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
Months pending 7.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
he interviewed for the visa at the U.S. Embassy in Pakistan and thus completed his application in April of this year.
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 neededfavors the government
Read by a model
the first two factors favor Defendants because “[d]istrict courts have generally found that immigration delays in excess of five, six, seven years are unreasonable, while those between three to five years are often not unreasonable.”
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
“Plaintiff’s application is delayed because of ‘resource- allocation decisions’ that ‘do not lend themselves to judicial reordering[s] [of] agency priorities.’”
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected Read by a model
For the reasons articulated in that decision, the Court again notes that the consular non-reviewability doctrine does not bar review of undue-delay claims related to visas mired in administrative processing.
Nationality Pakistan Read by a model
Plaintiff Abdul Wali Khan is a Pakistani citizen

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:22-cv-02422
Filed
August 15, 2022
Ended
November 29, 2022
Suit's filing to its end
106 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant

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.