Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Fakhimi v. United States Department of State

District of ColumbiaColleen Kollar-KotellyDecided October 23, 2023No. 1:23-cv-01127

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
It is unclear what relief DHS or the Secretary of Homeland Security could provide in the present case given that Mr. Javaheri’s visa application is with U.S. Embassy officials in Yerevan.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
Mr. Javaheri completed the required DS -160 application form and attended an interview at the U.S. Embassy in Yerevan on April 15, 2022.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
At the interview, the consular officer reviewed Mr. Javaheri’s documents and handed him a sheet informing him that his visa application was “refused under section 221(g) of the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act” because his case “is undergoing administrative processing[.]”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The Court shall therefore DISMISS Plaintiffs’ Complaint in its entirety.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Now pending before the Court is Defendants’ [15] Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Now pending before the Court is Defendants’ [15] Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
The Court shall therefore DISMISS Plaintiffs’ Complaint in its entirety.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss as to Plaintiff Houman Javaheri.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss as to Plaintiff Houman Javaheri. The Court shall therefore DISMISS Plaintiffs’ Complaint in its entirety.
Months pending 12 months from the application to the suit 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
Mr. Javaheri completed the required DS -160 application form and attended an interview at the U.S. Embassy in Yerevan on April 15, 2022.
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 government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
In sum, the Court finds that the first and second TRAC factors do not lend credence to Plaintiff Javaheri’s claim.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
However, the fact that others were interviewed after but adjudicated before Mr. Javaheri does not, without other information, mean that Defendants are not adhering to the first -in, first -out rule, as different applications may require different time and attention.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Held moot; Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found Read by a model
Here, the doctrine of consular non -reviewability does not preclude the Court from reviewing the adjudication of Mr. Javaheri’s visa application as it remains in administrative processing.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Plaintiff Houman Javaheri is an Iranian citizen

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-01127
Filed
April 24, 2023
Ended
October 23, 2023
Suit's filing to its end
182 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 3 (dismissed: lack of jurisdiction)

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.