Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

TARA v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

District of ColumbiaCarl J. NicholsDecided January 6, 2026No. 1:25-cv-00800

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
But “there is no deadline for the [Pakistan] Embassy to adjudicate [Tara’s brothers’] visa application[s],” so, “[w]ith no set timeline” provided by Congress in which consular officials must schedule interviews, “the Court looks to case law for guidance.”
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
proceed with final adjudication of her brothers’ pending immigrant visa applications.
What the suit asked for Schedule an interview Read by a model
(1) schedule immigrant visa interviews for her two brothers, both non-citizens living abroad; and (2) proceed with final adjudication of her brothers’ pending immigrant visa applications.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the Government’s Motion to Dismiss.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
The claims against Secretary Noem are dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) and the remaining claims are dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The Government moved to dismiss pursuant to 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
The claims against Secretary Noem are dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) and the remaining claims are dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the Government’s Motion to Dismiss.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the Government’s Motion to Dismiss. The claims against Secretary Noem are dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) and the remaining claims are dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).
Months pending Not stated at filing The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
At the time this case was filed, the delay was approximately ten months.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfareneutral
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedneutral
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
Both factors favor the Government here.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Here, the Government has established—without rebuttal from Tara—that granting her petition would simply place her brothers at the head of the queue, moving others back one space, and thereby produce no gain.
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
The Court agrees that because Tara has not alleged any pending duty owed by DHS, Tara’s claims against Secretary Noem are moot.
I-130 category Family preference Read by a model
Plaintiff Iffat Tara, a United States citizen, petitions for a writ of mandamus compelling the State Department and other Defendants associated with the federal government to: (1) schedule immigrant visa interviews for her two brothers

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-00800
Filed
March 18, 2025
Ended
January 6, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
294 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.