Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Zoroofchi v. Blinken

District of ColumbiaAna C. ReyesDecided March 27, 2025No. 1:24-cv-01556

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
There is no statutory or regulatory timeframe within which the State Department or a consular officer must re-adjudicate visa applications.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
In September 2019, Plaintiffs Zoroufchi and Ansari paid the appropriate visa processing fees and submitted their Forms DS-260, Online Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Applications, to the NVC.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Their injuries result not from the interim refusals of Plaintiff Ansari’s application but from the delay in reaching a true final decision. An order requiring Defendants “to complete [their] review more expeditiously” would redress that harm.
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. 6; DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ 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 29, 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 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 6; 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 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 6; 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
But because the Complaint does not plausibly allege that the delay here is unreasonable, the Court must dismiss this case.
Months pending 68.4 months from the application to the suit; 66.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
In September 2019, Plaintiffs Zoroufchi and Ansari paid the appropriate visa processing fees and submitted their Forms DS-260, Online Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Applications, to the NVC.
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
On balance, the first two TRAC factors support dismissal.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Without more unusual, urgent harm, the third and fifth TRAC factors are not enough to justify overriding the agency’s decision-making and moving Plaintiff ahead of other applicants.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
I-130 category Family preference Read by a model
Plaintiff Feloran Zoroofchi is an American citizen. Dkt. 1 ¶ 1. In April 2006, she filed an I-130 visa petition for her sister, Plaintiff Leyli Zoroufchi, and her sister’s husband, Plaintiff Mohammad Seraj Ansari.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-01556
Filed
May 27, 2024
Ended
March 27, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
304 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2025-03-27 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.