Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Abdullahi v. Blinken

District of ColumbiaRudolph ContrerasDecided November 25, 2024No. 1:23-cv-03900

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
bring this suit to compel Antony J. Blinken, in his official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of State (“Defendant”), to adjudicate the visa applications
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
After the interview, Plaintiff Abdirahman was informed that his application was refused and would have to undergo “mandatory administrative processing.”
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
to adjudicate the visa applications of Plaintiffs Abdirahman Mohamed Abdullahi, Mustaf Mohamed Ibrahim, and Salad Ahmed Halene, which have been stuck in administrative processing for approximately twenty months, twenty-one months, and twelve months, respectively.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS; DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
On March 4, 2024, Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
Defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted and Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied.
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 (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel (ECF No. 9) is DENIED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel (ECF No. 9) is DENIED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel (ECF No. 9) is DENIED.
Months pending 9.8 months from the application to the suit; 20.7 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On March 7, 2023, Plaintiff Abdirahman interviewed with a consular official at the U.S. Embassy in Djibouti.
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 and second TRAC factors weigh in Defendant’s favor.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Granting Plaintiffs’ requested relief would therefore “necessarily come at the expense of similarly situated applicants.”
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Djibouti Read by a model
Plaintiff Abdirahman Mohamed Abdullahi (“Plaintiff Abdirahman”), a national of Djibouti
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Plaintiff Abdirahman Mohamed Abdullahi (“Plaintiff Abdirahman”), a national of Djibouti, is the spouse of Plaintiff Ikram Dayib Abdullahi (“Plaintiff Ikram”), a U.S. citizen.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-03900
Filed
December 29, 2023
Ended
November 25, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
332 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.