Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Zarghami v. Blinken

District of ColumbiaAna C. ReyesDecided March 21, 2025No. 1:24-cv-00172

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
The State Department then refused his application, and so it remains in administrative processing.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Her brother, Plaintiff Arman Zarghami Khanesar (Arman), is an Iranian national seeking an immigrant visa to move to the United States.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
The State Department then refused his application, and so it remains in administrative processing.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For these reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 8;
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendant’s Motion seeks dismissal both under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on April 24, 2024.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For these reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 8; DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Dkt. 1, and this case without prejudice; and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to close this case.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For these reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 8; DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Dkt. 1, and this case without prejudice; and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to close this case.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Altogether, the TRAC factors do not plausibly point Plaintiffs’ way, and their unreasonable-delay claims therefore fail. The Court must therefore dismiss them under Rule 12(b)(6).
Months pending 48.1 months from the application to the suit; 62.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff Arman then submitted an online visa application, seemingly in January 2020, see id. ¶ 83; Dkt. 1-3, and in May 2021, the NVC notified him that the cases were documentarily qualified.
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 TRAC factors favor Defendant.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiffs cannot rely on how SAOs are processed to dispute the “first-in, first-out” basis.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Her brother, Plaintiff Arman Zarghami Khanesar (Arman), is an Iranian national seeking an immigrant visa to move to the United States.
I-130 category Family preference Read by a model
Plaintiff Parastue Zarghami (Parastue) is an American citizen. Dkt. 1 ¶ 66. Her brother, Plaintiff Arman Zarghami Khanesar (Arman), is an Iranian national seeking an immigrant visa to move to the United States.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-00172
Filed
January 19, 2024
Ended
March 21, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
427 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2025-03-21 for the defendants, ground not stated; 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.