Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Dehghanighanatghestani v. Mesquita

District of ColumbiaColleen Kollar-KotellyDecided September 22, 2022No. 1:22-cv-02595

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 Consulate confirmed receipt of these responses and materials within two hours, indicating that “[w]e are now able to continue processing your DV visa application” and “will contact you again once the administrative processing has been completed.”
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Following his interview, a consular “refused” Plaintiff’s visa application under § 221(g) of the INA.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
On September 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed his emergency TRO/PI Motion, seeking an order compelling Defendants to complete adjudication of his diversity petition.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court will DENY Plaintiff’s [6] Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court will DENY Plaintiff’s [6] Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court will DENY Plaintiff’s [6] Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction.
Disposition Denied in the government's favor The principal motion was denied in full: a motion to dismiss denied so the case goes on, or relief denied on the merits. Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court will DENY Plaintiff’s [6] Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court will DENY Plaintiff’s [6] Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court will DENY Plaintiff’s [6] Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction.
Months pending 11.4 months from the application to the suit; 12.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
He applied for a diversity visa in September 2021.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetableneutral
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
In sum, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his unreasonable delay claim as to the first TRAC factor.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Plaintiff has provided no contrary arguments or facts to suggest that Defendants’ alleged “delay” in processing his visa application is contrary to a rule a reason.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Plaintiff Mahziar Dehghanighanatghestani is a citizen of Iran who presently resides in Austria.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:22-cv-02595
Filed
August 29, 2022
Ended
September 27, 2022
Suit's filing to its end
29 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
stipulated dismissal 2022-09-27; 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.