Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Azarhomayoun v. Blinken

District of ColumbiaJia M. CobbDecided June 5, 2025No. 1:23-cv-01595

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
They attended visa interviews at the U.S. Consulate in Istanbul between August 2022 and December 2022.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiffs are five Iranian citizens who applied for nonimmigrant visas to work and study in the United States.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Plaintiffs were informed that their visa applications were placed into administrative processing pursuant to Section 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), where they have remained ever since.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF 5, is GRANTED, and as a result Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, pursuant to 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
Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF 5, is GRANTED
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF 5, is GRANTED, and as a result Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.
Months pending 33.7 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
They attended visa interviews at the U.S. Consulate in Istanbul between August 2022 and December 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 applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
Given the complexity and significance of that undertaking, the Court concludes that the first and second TRAC factors weigh in Defendants’ favor.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Courts in this District decline to compel agency action where an order putting the petitioner “at the head of the queue simply moves all others back one space and produces no net gain,”
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Plaintiffs Dr. Amir Azarhomayoun, Saeedeh Shirdel, Khashayar Khajavi, Leila Kianmehr, and Sadegh Mohtarami are citizens of Iran who have applied for nonimmigrant F-1, J-1, and J-2 visas.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-01595
Filed
June 2, 2023
Ended
June 5, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
734 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.