Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Moghadasghahfarokhi v. Blinken

District of ColumbiaLoren L. AlikhanDecided September 18, 2025No. 1:24-cv-02567

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
Plaintiff Marzieh Moghadasghahfarokhi, a U.S. citizen residing in the United States, and her father, Plaintiff Valiollah Moghadas, an Iranian national residing in Iran, seek to compel Secretary of State Marco Rubio to adjudicate Mr. Moghadas’s immigrant visa application.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
In August 2023, Mr. Moghadas and Ms. Ghahfarokhi filed their Form DS-260 applications, and the NVC found both of them documentarily qualified later that month.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Mr. Moghadas was informed that his application was being placed in administrative processing under Section 221(g) and that the government would “contact [him] by e-mail when [his] processing is completed.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the court will grant the Secretary’s motion to dismiss.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
For the reasons explained below, the court will dismiss the case under Rule 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The Secretary has moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint 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 dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the court will grant the Secretary’s motion to dismiss.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, the court will dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).
Months pending 13 months from the application to the suit; 25.1 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
In August 2023, Mr. Moghadas and Ms. Ghahfarokhi filed their Form DS-260 applications, and the NVC found both of them documentarily qualified later that month.
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 neededfavors the government
Read by a model
Both factors favor the Secretary.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Such would be the case here, where moving Mr. Moghadas to the front of the visa-adjudication queue would merely reorder all applicants with no change in the overall timeline.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Plaintiff Valiollah Moghadas, an Iranian national residing in Iran
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Plaintiff Marzieh Moghadasghahfarokhi, a U.S. citizen residing in the United States, and her father, Plaintiff Valiollah Moghadas

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-02567
Filed
September 8, 2024
Ended
September 18, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
375 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
voluntary dismissal 2025-08-31; 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.