Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

RAHIMIAN v. BLINKEN

District of ColumbiaBeryl Alaine HowellDecided January 10, 2023No. 1:22-cv-00785

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
For the application process to proceed, the State Department must schedule a consular interview, after which a consular officer will issue or refuse the visa.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
First, the State Department website describes the backlog of immigrant visa applications worldwide and the 377,953 applicant interviews still pending scheduling after all December 2022 interview slots were taken.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
On March 23, 2022, plaintiff filed this case “to compel the [d]efendants to take action on and adjudicate his wife’s [] visa application.”
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.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants provide three reasons for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) and (6):
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants thereafter moved to dismiss the complaint under 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
For the reasons given, defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons given, defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The Alleged Delay in Decision on Plaintiff’s Application Is Not Unreasonable, Requiring Dismissal of Claims for Failure to State a Claim
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Given the absence of any factual predicate, 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 forty-one-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
Given this backlog and ongoing public health considerations impacting consular staff operations, the first two TRAC factors weigh decisively in defendants’ favor.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Accordingly, deference must be given to the State Department’s priority-setting and resource-allocation decisions.
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Plaintiff’s claims against officials from the Department of Homeland Security and USCIS are moot.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Plaintiff Yousof Rahimian, 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 three years.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:22-cv-00785
Filed
March 22, 2022
Ended
January 10, 2023
Suit's filing to its end
294 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2023-01-10 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.