Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Mohammadalizadeh Shabestary v. Sanders

District of ColumbiaChristopher R. CooperDecided December 16, 2024No. 1:24-cv-00362

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
Two years later, in July 2023, a consular officer at the U.S. Consulate General in Montreal interviewed Shabestary and Mortazavian in connection with his visa application.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
In short, Plaintiff claims the Government has unreasonably delayed action on his application for an immigrant visa[.]
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Rather, he contends that the agency has unreasonably delayed its completion of administrative processing.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For these reasons, the Court will dismiss the complaint and the case in a separate order that accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
The government has moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The government has moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and 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 will dismiss the complaint and the case in a separate order that accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Because Shabestary has not plausibly alleged an unreasonable delay in adjudicating his visa application, the Court will grant the government’s motion and dismiss the complaint.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Because Shabestary has not plausibly alleged an unreasonable delay in adjudicating his visa application, the Court will grant the government’s motion and dismiss the complaint.
Months pending 7.1 months from the application to the suit; 17.1 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Two years later, in July 2023, Shabestary and his wife Shahed Mortazian sat for an interview at the U.S. Consulate General in Montreal.
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
Factors one, two, and four favor the defendants, factor six is neutral, and although factors three and five support Shabestary, the other factors outweigh them.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
But it is readily apparent that “[c]onsular processing capacity is presently a zero-sum game, so granting [Shabestary] relief would necessarily mean additional delays for other applicants—many of whom undoubtedly face hardships of their own.”
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected Read by a model
In this context, consular nonreviewability has no application and does not bar the Court’s review.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Shabestary, a citizen of Iran and Canada, resides in Ontario, Canada, with his wife.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-00362
Filed
February 7, 2024
Ended
December 17, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
314 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.