Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Motevali v. Blinken

District of ColumbiaSparkle L. SooknananDecided March 21, 2025No. 1:24-cv-01029

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
Since that date, the Plaintiffs have received no direct communication from the State Department and have repeatedly been told that the visa application remains “refused for administrative processing.”
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Mr. Alamouti then completed form DS-260, which initiates the formal visa application process.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
The Plaintiffs request that the Court “[e]njoin” the Defendants from “any further unreasonable delay in [Mr. Alamouti’s] pending immigration visa application.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 5.
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 the Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 5.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Consequently, the Court dismisses the Complaint.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 5.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Consequently, the Court dismisses the Complaint.
Months pending 7.2 months from the application to the suit; 18.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
A consular officer then interviewed Mr. Alamouti at the U.S. Embassy in Colombo, Sri Lanka, on September 5, 2023.
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
Based on these facts, both TRAC factors one and two favor the Defendants.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Besides, no matter the makeup of the line, an order from this Court compelling a decision on Mr. Alamouti’s visa application would “inevitably entail a judicial reordering of the Department’s priorities.”
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found Read by a model
As Mr. Alamouti’s visa is “undergoing . . . processing,” Compl. ¶ 83, the Defendants cannot use the consular non-reviewability doctrine to evade judicial review.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Mr. Motevali, an American citizen, successfully submitted Form I-130 to USCIS on October 1, 2019, on behalf of his father, Mr. Alamouti, an Iranian national.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
In 2019, American citizen Saeid Motevali filed an I-130 Petition on behalf of his father, Alireza Motevaly Alamouti, an Iranian national.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-01029
Filed
April 10, 2024
Ended
March 21, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
345 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.