Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Emad v. U.S. Department of State

District of ColumbiaTimothy J. KellyDecided July 23, 2024No. 1:23-cv-01789

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
They seek to compel the State Department to “promptly adjudicate” their visa applications.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
The foreign relative then submits another application (Form DS-260) and appears for an interview at the embassy with jurisdiction over the foreign relative’s residence.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Instead, they seek declaratory relief that the Secretary has unreasonably delayed the adjudication of their specific visa applications, and they request an order requiring the Secretary to complete the adjudication.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For all these reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion and dismiss the case.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and 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 all these reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion and dismiss the case.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For all these reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion and dismiss the case.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
As for the Department of State, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ allegations fail to state a claim for unreasonable delay. Thus, the Court will grant the motion and dismiss the case.
Months pending 4 months from the application to the suit; 17.3 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Emad completed an interview at the United States Embassy in Yerevan, Armenia on February 13, 2023.
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
These first two factors, taken together, strongly favor the State Department.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
In other words, Plaintiffs seek to cut to the front of the line.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Emad is an Iranian citizen.
I-130 category Family preference Read by a model
According to the Complaint, in November 2014, Rezvan Goodarzi, a U.S. permanent resident, filed an I-130 Petition, listing her son, Plaintiff Seyednavid Emad, as the beneficiary.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-01789
Filed
June 20, 2023
Ended
July 23, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
399 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2024-07-23 for the defendants, ground not stated; 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.