Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Farooqui v. United States Department of State

District of ColumbiaTanya S. ChutkanDecided March 19, 2024No. 1:23-cv-01081

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
On February 7, 2022, the U.S. Department of State conducted a visa interview with Plaintiffs, but “refuse[d]” their visa applications.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
“[T]he visa application filed by Plaintiffs [is] currently undergoing ‘administrative processing.’”
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Since their interview, Plaintiffs have requested but not received “information as to when, if ever, the visas may be issued,” learning only that the applications remain in “administrative processing.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For these reasons, the court will GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 5.
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 Plaintiffs’ claims under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
For these reasons, the court will GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 5.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the reasons set forth below, the court will GRANT Defendants’ Motion and dismiss this action.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons set forth below, the court will GRANT Defendants’ Motion and dismiss this action.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ unreasonable delay claim must be dismissed.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
For the reasons set forth below, the court will GRANT Defendants’ Motion and dismiss this action.
Months pending 14.2 months from the application to the suit; 25.3 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On February 7, 2022, the U.S. Department of State conducted a visa interview with Plaintiffs, but “refuse[d]” their visa applications.
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
The fourth TRAC factor favors Defendants. They correctly observe that, in effect, the result that Plaintiffs seek here “would be merely to expedite the consideration of a [their] application ahead of others.”
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Pakistan Read by a model
Plaintiffs are citizens of Pakistan currently residing in the United Arab Emirates.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-01081
Filed
April 18, 2023
Ended
March 19, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
336 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.

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.