Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Norouzi v. United States Department of State

District of ColumbiaAna C. ReyesDecided March 6, 2025No. 1:24-cv-01282

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
Dianaty interviewed at the Embassy in December 2022 and has yet to receive a decision on the visa application, which remains in administrative processing.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Dianaty interviewed at the Embassy in December 2022 and has yet to receive a decision on the visa application, which remains in administrative processing.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Dianaty interviewed at the Embassy in December 2022 and has yet to receive a decision on the visa application, which 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 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 8; DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint, Dkt. 1, and this case without prejudice; and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to close this case.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants’ 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
Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint on July 23, 2024.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
The Court therefore dismisses this case.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For these reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 8;
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The Court must dismiss his unreasonable delay claims under Rule 12(b)(6).
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
The Court sympathizes with Plaintiff’s situation, but his Complaint does not state plausible unreasonable-delay, CARRP, or due process claims. The Court therefore dismisses this case.
Months pending 16.5 months from the application to the suit; 26.7 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Consistent with prior decisions involving administrative processing, the Court treats the December 2022 interview date as the starting point and assumes, favorably to Plaintiff, that the delay runs through today.
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 cases cited by Plaintiff thus fail to move the needle in his favor, and the first two factors favor dismissal.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Without more pressing or unusual injuries, TRAC factors three and five do not warrant the Court interfering with the agency’s priorities to place Plaintiff at the front of the line.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Iran Read by a model
His wife, Mina Dianaty, is an Iranian citizen and resident.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Plaintiff Aiden Norouzi is an American citizen. Dkt. 1 ¶ 1. His wife, Mina Dianaty, is an Iranian citizen and resident. Id. ¶ 2. In May 2021, Plaintiff filed an I-130 visa petition with USCIS on Dianaty’s behalf.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-01282
Filed
May 1, 2024
Ended
November 7, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
555 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.

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.