Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Rohmeena v. Bitter

District of ColumbiaAna C. ReyesDecided August 22, 2024No. 1:23-cv-02754

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
Plaintiff has sued several State Department officials, seeking an order compelling prompt adjudication of her application.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
In 2022, Plaintiff Fnu Rohmeena applied for an immigrant visa to join her husband in the United States.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendants to decide the application.
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. 8; DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint, Dkt. 1, and this case without prejudice; and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to close this case.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants have moved to dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants have moved to dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
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. 8; DISMISSES Plaintiff’s 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. 8; DISMISSES Plaintiff’s 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
For these reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 8; DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint, Dkt. 1, and this case without prejudice; and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to close this case.
Months pending 14.5 months from the application to the suit; 25.7 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
In 2022, Plaintiff Fnu Rohmeena applied for an immigrant visa to join her husband in the United States.
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
On balance, the first two TRAC factors support dismissal.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Plaintiff offers no reason to doubt that the State Department follows such a system or that, if it does, the approach qualifies as a rule of reason for purposes of the first two TRAC factors.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Pakistan Read by a model
Plaintiff Rohmeena is a citizen and resident of Pakistan.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Her husband, Ramin Sadat, is a U.S. citizen. Id. ¶ 2. Sadat filed an I-130 petition with USCIS on Plaintiff’s behalf in February 2021.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-02754
Filed
September 20, 2023
Ended
August 23, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
338 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.