Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Jahangiri v. U.S. Department of State

District of ColumbiaColleen Kollar-KotellyDecided July 15, 2024No. 1:23-cv-03029

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
Because Congress has provided no statutory timeframe indicating how quickly it requires the State Department to adjudicate and re -adjudicate visa applications, TRAC factor two is inapplicable.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
In December 2022, Plaintiff submitted a K -1 nonimmigrant visa application.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Through this action, Plaintiff seek s to compel Defendants to adjudicate her visa application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court shall GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and DISMISS Plaintiff’s [1] Complaint in its entirety.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants filed the pending Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Now pending before the Court is Defendants’ [6] Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court shall GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and DISMISS Plaintiff’s [1] Complaint in its entirety.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court shall GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and DISMISS Plaintiff’s [1] Complaint in its entirety.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's Complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
Months pending 9.9 months from the application to the suit; 19 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
In December 2022, Plaintiff submitted a K -1 nonimmigrant visa application.
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
In sum, the Court finds that the first and second TRAC factors do not lend credence to Plaintiff's claims.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
A later filed visa application being adjudicated sooner than Plaintiff’s does not, without more, support the contention that Defendants are not adhering to the first -in, first -out rule, as different applications may require different resources and time.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court holds that the consular non-reviewability doctrine does not bar judicial review of Ms. Jahangiri’s claims.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Plaintiff Sara Jahangiri is a citizen of Iran who is engaged to a United States citizen.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-03029
Filed
October 11, 2023
Ended
July 15, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
278 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
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.