Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Alhabra v. Blinken

District of ColumbiaSparkle L. SooknananDecided April 2, 2025No. 1:24-cv-00854

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
To date, the embassy in Kuala Lumpur has not transferred Ms. Alhabra’s case file to Djibouti, and the embassy in Djibouti has not scheduled DNA testing.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa); I-601 (waiver) Read by a model
They challenge the denial of Ms. Alhabra’s visa and I-601 applications, and they seek to compel the Defendants to transfer their files from the U.S. Embassy in Kuala Lumpur to the U.S. Embassy in Djibouti and schedule a DNA collection appointment.
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
They challenge the denial of Ms. Alhabra’s visa and I-601 applications, and they seek to compel the Defendants to transfer their files from the U.S. Embassy in Kuala Lumpur to the U.S. Embassy in Djibouti and schedule a DNA collection appointment.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For these reasons, the Court grants the Defendants’ motion, ECF No. 12, and dismisses the Amended Complaint, ECF No. 10.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
The Defendants have moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The Defendants have moved to dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil 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
For these reasons, the Court grants the Defendants’ motion, ECF No. 12, and dismisses the Amended Complaint, ECF No. 10.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For these reasons, the Court grants the Defendants’ motion, ECF No. 12, and dismisses the Amended Complaint, ECF No. 10.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Without jurisdiction, the Court cannot review the Plaintiffs’ claims under the APA or the Mandamus Act. They are dismissed.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
For these reasons, the Court grants the Defendants’ motion, ECF No. 12, and dismisses the Amended Complaint, ECF No. 10.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied; Consular nonreviewability applied Read by a model
The Court is thus without authority to review USCIS’s decision to deny Ms. Alhabra’s I-601 waiver application.
Nationality Yemen Read by a model
Laila Hussein Ahmed Alhabra and her two children are Yemeni citizens seeking to immigrate to the United States.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-00854
Filed
March 25, 2024
Ended
April 2, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
373 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.