Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Shahnia v. U.S. Department of State

District of ColumbiaAna C. ReyesDecided June 27, 2024No. 1:23-cv-02337

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
Consular officials at the U.S. Embassy in Yerevan, Armenia, interviewed Plaintiffs on April 6, 2023.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiffs are Iranian citizens who have applied for immigrant visas to move to the United States. In April 2023, consular officers refused Plaintiffs’ applications pending further administrative processing.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
In April 2023, consular officers refused Plaintiffs’ applications pending further administrative processing. After four months without further developments, Plaintiffs joined the tidal wave of litigants in this District challenging visa-processing delays.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For these reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 4; DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Dkt. 1, and this case without prejudice; and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to close this case.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion seeks dismissal both under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint in October 2023.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For these reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 4; DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Dkt. 1, and this case without prejudice; and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to close this case.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For these reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 4; DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Dkt. 1, and this case without prejudice; and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to close this case.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
But their Complaint does not state plausible unreasonable-delay claims, and so the Court must dismiss this case.
Months pending 19 months from the application to the suit; 29.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
forms 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 neededneutral
Read by a model
The first two TRAC factors favor Defendants.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Since Plaintiffs cite nothing other than the length of the delay in support of their argument, their allegations do not support a reasonable inference that the agency is not processing applications in an orderly, rational way. The first two TRAC factors favor Defendants.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Plaintiff Abdoljavad Shahnia is an Iranian citizen, as is his stepson, co-Plaintiff Shahryar Shahnia.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Abdoljavad’s wife, Arezou Akhyari, is a U.S. citizen.2 Id. In June 2021, Akhyari filed an I-130 petition on Plaintiffs’ behalf.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-02337
Filed
August 11, 2023
Ended
June 27, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
321 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant

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.