Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

IQBAL v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

District of ColumbiaLoren L. AliKhanDecided July 25, 2024No. 1:23-cv-02350

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 the State Department, Secretary of State, and Assistant Secretary of State either do or could play a role in the pace of visa adjudications, an order from this court directing them to move more quickly would likely redress Mr. Iqbal’s harms.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
In 2022, he applied for an H-1B visa to continue working in the United States.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Mr. Iqbal seeks the final processing and adjudication of his visa application, not a specific outcome, as relief.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the court will grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 11, and will deny Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery, ECF No. 17.
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 under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), ECF No. 11
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants have moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), ECF No. 11
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
the court will grant Defendants’ motion and dismiss the case under Rule 12(b)(6)
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
the court will grant Defendants’ motion and dismiss the case under Rule 12(b)(6)
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
the court will grant Defendants’ motion and dismiss the case under Rule 12(b)(6)
Months pending 13.5 months from the application to the suit; 24.8 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
In 2022, he applied for an H-1B visa to continue working in the United States.
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 government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
Both factors favor Defendants.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Such would be the case here, where moving Mr. Iqbal to the front of the visa-adjudication line would merely reorder all applicants with no change in the overall timeline.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found Read by a model
Mr. Iqbal’s visa application remains in administrative processing. ECF No. 7 ¶ 44. The doctrine thus does not apply.
Nationality Norway Read by a model
Mr. Iqbal was born in Pakistan and is a Norwegian citizen.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-02350
Filed
August 14, 2023
Ended
July 30, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
351 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.