Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Ghobadi Pasha v. U.S. Department of State

District of ColumbiaBeryl A. HowellDecided February 21, 2024No. 1:23-cv-01546

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
As described in defendants’ motion to dismiss, a consular officer at the Department of State issued plaintiff’s visa after the filing of this lawsuit.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
After filing an application for an immigrant visa with the U.S. Consulate in Naples, Italy, on or around December 2020, id. ¶ 2, plaintiff’s visa was placed into “administrative processing” in March 2022, id. ¶ 3.2
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
The limited scope of plaintiff’s claim is confirmed by the scope of the predominant relief she seeks, namely: to compel “the U.S. Embassy in Naples to adjudicate [her] immigrant Visa application within a reasonable time.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, the case is dismissed and defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that in light of the issuance of plaintiff’s visa, the case should be dismissed as moot.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s petition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
Accordingly, plaintiff’s claim of unreasonable delay in the adjudication of her visa application is now moot and her petition must be dismissed.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
By issuing her visa not once, but now twice, defendants have afforded plaintiff all the relief she demanded in her petition for a writ of mandamus.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Accordingly, plaintiff’s claim of unreasonable delay in the adjudication of her visa application is now moot and her petition must be dismissed.
Months pending 35.2 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
defendants filed a notice explaining that the State Department issued a replacement visa to plaintiff on November 21, 2023.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Defendants are correct that plaintiff’s claim of unreasonable delay is now moot.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Plaintiff, a citizen of Iran

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-01546
Filed
May 31, 2023
Ended
February 21, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
266 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
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.