Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Rezaeirad v. Blinken

District of ColumbiaRichard J. LeonDecided August 12, 2024No. 1:23-cv-01182

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
The Secretary of State can provide relief by directing consular officers to adjudicate pending visa applications “within a reasonable time,” 5 U.S.C. § 555(b).
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiff Dr. Gholamali Rezaeirad brings this action against Secretary of State Antony Blinken, seeking to compel the U.S. Government to adjudicate his nonimmigrant visa application.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Turning to the merits, plaintiff contends that the Government has unreasonably delayed the adjudication of his visa application, which has remained in administrative processing for approximately 20 months.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
On June 27, 2023, the Government moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On June 27, 2023, the Government moved to dismiss 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, defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Because the Court dismisses plaintiff's unreasonable delay claim for other reasons, it declines to address this argument.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for arbitrary and capricious treatment for several reasons.
Months pending 6.4 months from the application to the suit; 21.9 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff Dr. Gholamali Rezaeirad is an eighty-two year old Iranian national who submitted a renewed application for a visitor visa in October 2022.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfareneutral
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedneutral
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
Accordingly, the first two TRAC Factors favor the defendant.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
However, consular “[p]rocessing capacity is presently a zero-sum game,” so expediting review of plaintiffs application “would necessarily mean additional delays for other applicants—many of whom undoubtedly face hardships of their own.”
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability applied; Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found Read by a model
secking to have this Court review the basis for the Government’s decision to grant his wife’s visa, which is shielded by the consular nonreviewability doctrine.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
He is an Iranian national who hopes to travel to the United States to visit his children and grandchildren.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-01182
Filed
April 28, 2023
Ended
August 17, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
477 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.