Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Shirouyehnezhad v. Blinken

District of ColumbiaTanya S. ChutkanDecided January 13, 2025No. 1:23-cv-02910

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
By July 2022, Plaintiff had received notification from NVC that all three beneficiaries were “documentarily qualified,” and that the U.S. Embassy in Abu Dhabi would schedule an immigrant visa interview for each of them.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiff is a U.S. citizen seeking an immigrant visa for her husband and two minor stepchildren (collectively, her “beneficiaries”), who live in Iran.
What the suit asked for Schedule an interview Read by a model
Plaintiff alleges unlawful delay in the scheduling of interviews for her beneficiaries.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For these reasons, the court will GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 10.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
For these reasons, the court will GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 10.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants moved to dismiss the case under Federal Rules of 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
Plaintiff’s Complaint must be dismissed because she has failed to plausibly allege an unreasonable delay as a matter of law.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For these reasons, the court will GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 10.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiff’s Complaint must be dismissed because she has failed to plausibly allege an unreasonable delay as a matter of law.
Months pending 30 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
it amounts to about thirty months.
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
Under this body of case law, the first and second TRAC factors favor Defendants.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
The fourth TRAC factor favors Defendants, who correctly observe that, in effect, the relief that Plaintiff seeks “would be merely to expedite the consideration of [her] request ahead of others.”
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Plaintiff is a U.S. citizen seeking an immigrant visa for her husband and two minor stepchildren (collectively, her “beneficiaries”), who live in Iran.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-02910
Filed
September 29, 2023
Ended
January 13, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
472 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.