Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Memon v. Blinken

District of ColumbiaColleen Kollar-KotellyDecided February 1, 2023

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
To date, the NVC has not forwarded their applications to a consular officer for interview(s) at the United States Embassy, Islamabad.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
applied for visas to enter the United States, sponsored by their mother and lawful permanent resident Plaintiff Khair Memon.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs insist that Defendant, therefore, has not adjudicated their applications “within a reasonable time”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the Court shall GRANT Defendant’s [10] Motion to Dismiss.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
The Court takes the following facts, to the extent they are plausible, as true for the purposes of resolving the pending Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendant’s [10] 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 GRANT S Defendant’s [10] Motion to Dismiss and DISMISS Plaintiff’s [1] Complaint.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANT S Defendant’s [10] Motion to Dismiss and DISMISS Plaintiff’s [1] Complaint.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANT S Defendant’s [10] Motion to Dismiss and DISMISS Plaintiff’s [1] Complaint.
Months pending 37.7 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On December 11, 2019, Plaintiffs Abdullah Memon, Fatimah Memon, Muhammad Tayyab Memon, Javeriah Memon, and Mariah Memon applied for visas to enter the United States
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 government
  • 6. No impropriety neededfavors the government
Read by a model
Simply put, the inquiry begins and ends with Defendant’s consistent application of the “first-in, first-out” methodology.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Simply put, the inquiry begins and ends with Defendant’s consistent application of the “first-in, first-out” methodology.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
I-130 category Family preference Read by a model
applied for visas to enter the United States, sponsored by their mother and lawful permanent resident Plaintiff Khair Memon.

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.