Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Hosseini v. Eadeh

District of ColumbiaAmit P. MehtaDecided July 17, 2024No. 1:23-cv-00700

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
Plaintiffs are Iranian nationals seeking to compel Defendants Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Julie Eadeh, the U.S. Consul General of the U.S. Embassy in Istanbul, Turkey, to adjudicate their J-1 research scholar visa applications, which have now been pending for nearly two years.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
He submitted a DS- 160 Form and was interviewed at the United States Consulate General in Istanbul, Turkey (“Istanbul Consulate”) on August 8, 2022.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Defendants point out that the consular official in Turkey “refused” Plaintiffs’ visa applications under § 221(g) of the INS.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 14, is granted.
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 Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of standing and under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants have moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of standing and under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 14, is granted.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 14, is granted.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 14, is granted.
Months pending 6.9 months from the application to the suit; 23.3 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
He submitted a DS- 160 Form and was interviewed at the United States Consulate General in Istanbul, Turkey (“Istanbul Consulate”) on August 8, 2022.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonneutral
  • 2. Congressional timetableneutral
  • 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
Thus, the approximately 22-month delay (for Hosseini) and 23-month delay (for Khaleghi and Sheykhan) between when they appeared for consulate interviews and the date of this opinion is, at best, neutral.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
But the fact that a small group of J-1 visa applications were processed and adjudicated at different timelines “does not, without other information, mean that Defendants are not adhering to the first-in, first-out rule[.]”
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Plaintiffs are Iranian nationals

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-00700
Filed
March 15, 2023
Ended
July 19, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
492 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.