Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Rahman v. Blinken

District of ColumbiaJames E. BoasbergDecided January 17, 2023No. 1:22-cv-02732

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 Department of State Read by a model
He interviewed for the visa at the U.S. Embassy in Bangladesh and thus completed his application in January 2022.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiff Habibur Rahman is a Bangladeshi citizen who awaits a decision on his application for an F-1 visa
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Since then, his application has remained in administrative processing.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss invokes Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The Government now moves 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 will grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
Months pending 12.1 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
He interviewed for the visa at the U.S. Embassy in Bangladesh and thus completed his application in January 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 applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededfavors the government
Read by a model
the first two factors favor Defendants
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
The fourth factor carries the most weight here, as courts have held it does in most cases, and favors Defendants.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected Read by a model
Second, for the reasons articulated in Sawahreh and reaffirmed in Khan, the Court again concludes that the consular non-reviewability doctrine does not bar review of undue-delay claims related to visas mired in administrative processing.
Nationality Bangladesh Read by a model
Plaintiff is a Bangladeshi national

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:22-cv-02732
Filed
September 9, 2022
Ended
January 17, 2023
Suit's filing to its end
130 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
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.