Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Khoshdel Nikkho v. Rubio

District of ColumbiaTREVOR N. McFADDENDecided May 18, 2026No. 1:25-cv-04172

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
Unsatisfied, Nikkho and Alvari sued several State Department officials (collectively, “the Department”), arguing that they have unreasonably delayed a final decision on Alvari’s application.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Second, Plaintiffs argue that Congress “established a thirty-day benchmark for processing IR-1 immigrant visa applications following the completion of an interview.”
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Plaintiffs disagree that a § 221(g) denial satisfies the Department’s duty, stressing that the real decision cannot occur until Alvari’s application completes administrative processing.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The Court will therefore dismiss this case.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
The Department moves to dismiss the Complaint and petition for a writ of mandamus under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The Department moves to dismiss the Complaint and petition for a writ of mandamus under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
The Court will therefore dismiss this case.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The Court will grant that motion because there is no remaining duty for the Court to compel and the suit is barred by the doctrine of consular nonreviewability.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The Court will grant that motion because there is no remaining duty for the Court to compel and the suit is barred by the doctrine of consular nonreviewability.
Months pending 12.1 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Alvari sat for an interview in May 2025 at the U.S. Embassy in Ankara, Turkey.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability applied; No duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal Read by a model
Consular nonreviewability also bars this suit.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Hamid Khoshdel Nikkho, a U.S. citizen, married Gita Alvari, an Iranian citizen, in 2022.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Hamid Khoshdel Nikkho, a U.S. citizen, married Gita Alvari, an Iranian citizen, in 2022.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-04172
Filed
December 1, 2025
Ended
May 18, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
168 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2026-05-18 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.