Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

ARAB v. BLINKEN

District of ColumbiaBeryl Alaine HowellDecided April 21, 2022No. 1:21-cv-01852

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,917 written decisions from 2,664 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 7:07 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 National Visa Center Read by a model
The application remains, however, at NVC, without NVC scheduling a consular interview.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiff Mohamed Arab, a U.S. citizen, seeks to compel defendants—various federal officials in their official capacities—to adjudicate his wife’s visa application, which has been pending without decision for over two years.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiff Mohamed Arab, a U.S. citizen, seeks to compel defendants—various federal officials in their official capacities—to adjudicate his wife’s visa application, which has been pending without decision for over two years.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons given, defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Summary judgment Read by a model
While contesting defendants’ challenges under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), plaintiff moves for summary judgment.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
As noted, pending before the Court is defendants’ motion to dismiss and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his APA, Mandamus, and CARRP claims.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the reasons given, defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons given, defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The Alleged Delay in Rendering a Decision on Plaintiff’s Application Is Not Unreasonable, so Plaintiff’s Claims Are Dismissed for Failure to State a Claim
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Given the lack of factual support, defendants’ motion to dismiss the CARRP claim is granted.
Months pending Not stated at filing The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
Accordingly, the thirty-month delay in this case is not long enough to tilt the first two TRAC factors in favor of plaintiff.
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 and second TRAC factors, on balance, weigh in favor of defendants.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
First, the website for the U.S. Embassy in Jordan shows that the existence of a queue is a fact and not fiction.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Held moot Read by a model
“[T]he doctrine of consular nonreviewability is not triggered,” where, as here, “a consular officer” has not rendered a final decision and the visa application remains under consideration.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Plaintiff Mohamed Arab, a U.S. citizen, seeks to compel defendants—various federal officials in their official capacities—to adjudicate his wife’s visa application, which has been pending without decision for over two years.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:21-cv-01852
Filed
July 12, 2021
Ended
April 21, 2022
Suit's filing to its end
283 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2022-04-21 for the defendants, ground not stated; 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.