Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Sadeghi v. U.S. Department of State

District of ColumbiaTREVOR N. McFADDENDecided July 9, 2024No. 1:24-cv-00449

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 State has performed that duty by twice refusing Sadeghi’s application.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
Hoping to visit them, Sadeghi applied for a B1/B2 Business & Tourism Nonimmigrant Visa in June 2022 and sat for an interview.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
He thus asks the Court to order them to render a decision—any decision—on his application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The Court will therefore grant State’s motion to dismiss.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
State has moved to dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
State has moved to dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
The Court will therefore grant State’s motion to dismiss.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The Court will therefore grant State’s motion to dismiss.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The Court will therefore grant State’s motion to dismiss.
Months pending 24.8 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Hoping to visit them, Sadeghi applied for a B1/B2 Business & Tourism Nonimmigrant Visa in June 2022 and sat for an interview.
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 two factors “strongly favor State.”
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Now, the fourth factor. This factor strongly disfavors Sadeghi. Ordering State to prioritize his application would place him “at the head of the queue” and “move all others back one space,” “produc[ing] no net gain.”
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability applied; No duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal Read by a model
First, consular nonreviewability bars Sadeghi’s suit.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Ali Mohammad Sadeghi is an Iranian citizen whose wife and family live here.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-00449
Filed
February 15, 2024
Ended
July 9, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
145 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.