Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Sabeti v. Blinken

District of ColumbiaTanya S. ChutkanDecided August 26, 2025No. 1:24-cv-02627

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
By refusing Azaragoshasbi a visa, the State Department fulfilled its duty.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
seek to compel agency action on Azargoshasbi’s application for a fiancée visa.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
They contend that because Azaragoshasbi’s application was placed into administrative processing, the State Department has not issued “a final refusal” and has therefore failed to fulfill its duty to act.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, the court will GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Because Plaintiffs fail to point to any duty requiring the State Department to take further action on Azaragoshasbi’s already-refused visa application, they have failed to state a claim under both the APA and the Mandamus Act.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants now move to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Accordingly, the court will GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Accordingly, the court will GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiffs therefore cannot state a claim under either the APA or the Mandamus Act. Accordingly, the court will GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
Months pending 20.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
As Plaintiffs acknowledge, a consular officer “refused” Azaragoshasbi’s application following her interview in December 2023.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings No duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal Read by a model
Because Plaintiffs fail to point to any duty requiring the State Department to take further action on Azaragoshasbi’s already-refused visa application, they have failed to state a claim under both the APA and the Mandamus Act.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
his fiancée Sayna Azargoshasbi, an Iranian national

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-02627
Filed
September 11, 2024
Ended
August 26, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
349 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.