Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

MAJLESI v. RUBIO

District of ColumbiaLoren L. AliKhanDecided March 9, 2026No. 1:25-cv-00614

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
Additionally, “deference must be given to the State Department’s priority-setting and resource-allocation decisions” in the visa-adjudication context.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
In October 2019, Plaintiffs filed the necessary additional forms and paid the visa application processing fees for their DS-260 visa applications.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
In March 2025, Plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of mandamus and a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendants, seeking to compel final adjudications of their visa applications.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the court will grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 5.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
For the reasons explained below, the court will grant the motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the court will grant 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
Accordingly, the court will dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the court will grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 5.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, the court will dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).
Months pending 65 months from the application to the suit; 76.8 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
In October 2019, Plaintiffs filed the necessary additional forms and paid the visa application processing fees for their DS-260 visa applications.
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
Both factors favor Defendants.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
It would be improper for the court to intervene and expedite Plaintiffs’ visa applications at the expense of others. The fourth factor thus weighs heavily in favor of Defendants.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ case is not barred by the doctrine of consular nonreviewability.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Iranian nationals who reside in Iran
I-130 category Family preference Read by a model
Plaintiff Shamseddin Eslami’s sibling, a U.S. citizen, filed a Form I-130 on behalf of Eslami;

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-00614
Filed
March 3, 2025
Ended
March 9, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
371 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
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.