Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Mottahedan v. Oudkirk

District of ColumbiaColleen Kollar-KotellyDecided January 11, 2024No. 1:23-cv-03486

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
And the State Department has, as Plaintiffs concede, taken “some action on the application since [January 2019],” interviewing Plaintiffs in October 2022.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ vis a applications have remained in administrative processing since then.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
In their Complaint, Plaintiffs request that the Court enter an order compelling Defendants to adjudicate their applications “within a timeline that appreciates the existing queue of applicants, if any, but no longer than 90 days from the Court’s judgment.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court shall sua sponte DISMISS Plaintiffs’ [1] Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The court on its own Read by a model
The Court then issued an order stating that the matter was before the Court on sua sponte review of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court shall sua sponte DISMISS Plaintiffs’ [1] Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court shall sua sponte DISMISS Plaintiffs’ [1] Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ Complaint must be dismissed su a sponte for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
Months pending 13.3 months from the application to the suit; 15 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
The consular interview was conducted on October 12, 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 government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
Therefore, the Court finds that the first and second TRAC factors do not lend credence to Plaintiffs’ claims.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ conclusory assertions, without more, are insufficient to show that the State Department is not following a rule of reason by employing a first-in, first-out methodology.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected Read by a model
the doctrine would be inapplicable based on the facts before the Court. See, e.g., Vulupala v. Barr, 438 F. Supp. 3d 93, 98 (D.D.C. 2020) (ABJ) (recognizing that a 221(g) notification “is not sufficiently final to warrant the application of the doctrine of consular nonreviewability”)
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Plaintiff Mottahedan is a national and citizen of Iran.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-03486
Filed
November 20, 2023
Ended
January 11, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
52 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
idb disp 2 (dismissed: want of prosecution)

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.