Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

SEIFAN v. SWEENEY

District of ColumbiaRudolph ContrerasDecided July 31, 2025No. 1:25-cv-00261

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,917 written decisions from 2,664 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 7:07 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
On May 25, 2023, the Auckland Consulate sent Mr. Seifan an unsigned email stating that his application “requires additional administrative processing before we can adjudicate the visa.”
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
But because Plaintiff seeks an immigrant visa, not a nonimmigrant visa, 22 C.F.R. § 41.106 does not apply.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Following the interview, the consular official refused Mr. Seifan’s application under INA § 221(g), 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g) and then placed it into administrative processing.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
The government has moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The government has moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (b)(6).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
The Court will therefore dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Because Plaintiff has not identified a clear and non-discretionary duty, his claims for relief under the APA (Count I) and the Mandamus Act (Count II) must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Finally, because neither of Plaintiffs’ substantive claims state a claim for which relief can be granted, his derivative claim for attorney’s fees in Count III must also be dismissed.
Months pending 20.5 months from the application to the suit; 26.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On May 17, 2023, Plaintiff interviewed with the U.S. Consulate in Auckland, New Zealand.
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
The Court concludes that none of 8 U.S.C. § 1202(b), 22 C.F.R. § 42.81(a), and 22 C.F.R. § 41.106 creates a crystal-clear obligation for Defendants to re-adjudicate Mr. Seifan’s visa application.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
On December 30, 2021, Mr. Seifan, an Iranian citizen, petitioned for an EB-2 visa.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-00261
Filed
January 29, 2025
Ended
July 31, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
183 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.