Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Yazdanpanahderav v. U.S. Department of State

District of ColumbiaAna C. ReyesDecided June 14, 2024No. 1:23-cv-03688

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
Officials at the U.S. Embassy in Abu Dhabi have not yet scheduled her for a consular interview—a necessary step toward acquiring a visa.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
In 2022, Plaintiff Mahboubeh Yazdanpanahderav applied for an immigrant visa to join her husband (and fellow Plaintiff) Sajjad Mousavi in the United States.
What the suit asked for Schedule an interview Read by a model
Plaintiffs seek an order compelling Defendants to schedule an interview and decide the application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For these reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 5; DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Dkt. 1, and this case without prejudice; and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to close this case.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion seeks dismissal both under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint in February 2024.
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 hereby GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 5; DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Dkt. 1, and this case without prejudice; and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to close this case.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The Court therefore dismisses this case without prejudice.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
But the Complaint does not plausibly allege that the delay here is unreasonable, and so the Court must dismiss this case.
Months pending 16.4 months from the application to the suit; 22.3 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Yazdanpanahderav submitted the required application, documents, and fees on August 4, 1 The consular officer must instead “discontinue granting the visa” if the applicant’s country is subject to visa sanctions under 8 U.S.C. § 1253(d). 22 C.F.R. § 42.81(a). 2022.
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 two TRAC factors support dismissal.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
the record otherwise shows that the agency takes a reasonable, largely first-in, first-out approach to processing applications.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Plaintiff Yazdanpanahderav is an Iranian citizen who resides in Iran.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Her husband, Plaintiff Mousavi, is a U.S. citizen who lives in New York.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-03688
Filed
December 11, 2023
Ended
June 14, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
186 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.