Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Sharifymoghaddam v. Blinken

District of ColumbiaRoyce C. LamberthDecided March 5, 2024No. 1:23-cv-01472

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
Plaintiffs’ APA and mandamus claims rest on the same theory: that the Department of State unreasonably delayed the adjudication of plaintiffs’ visa applications.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiffs timely filed their DS-260 visa applications with the National Visa Center on July 13 and 14, 2020.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
They bring suit under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 555(b), 706(1), and the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, to compel a final decision on their immigrant visa applications.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the Court will GRANT defendants’ motion and dismiss plaintiffs’ Complaint for failure to state a claim.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants have moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants have moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
the Court will GRANT defendants’ motion and dismiss plaintiffs’ Complaint for failure to state a claim.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
the Court will GRANT defendants’ motion and dismiss plaintiffs’ Complaint for failure to state a claim.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Nevertheless, the Court concludes that defendants are entitled to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) because plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for unreasonable delay.
Months pending 34.3 months from the application to the suit; 43.7 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiffs timely filed their DS-260 visa applications with the National Visa Center on July 13 and 14, 2020.
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 and second factors favor defendants.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Plaintiffs offer no persuasive reason to reject defendants’ representation that prioritizing these applications would necessarily come at the expense of other similarly situated applicants.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected Read by a model
The Court adopts the reasoning of the above decisions and concludes that consular nonreviewability is inapplicable under these circumstances.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Both plaintiffs, Sayeh Sharifymoghaddam and Seyyed Mahmood Jafari Sadeghi, are dual Iranian and Canadian nationals.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-01472
Filed
May 23, 2023
Ended
March 5, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
287 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.