Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Rajabi v. Blinken

District of ColumbiaPaul L. FriedmanDecided January 30, 2026No. 1:24-cv-01968

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
A consular officer interviewed Mr. Rajabi regarding his visa application on December 15, 2022.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
To obtain a B-1/B-2 visa, a noncitizen must complete and submit a Form DS-160 Online Nonimmigrant Visa Application, upload supporting documentation, and pay the applicable fees.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Contending that the adjudication of his visa application has been unlawfully withheld and unreasonably delayed, Mr. Rajabi asks the Court to compel the government to decide his visa application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the Court granted the government’s motion and dismissed Mr. Rajabi’s complaint by Order on September 30, 2025 [Dkt. No. 10]. This Opinion explains the reasoning behind that Order.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
On September 3, 2024, the government filed a motion to dismiss Mr. Rajabi’s complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
the government filed a motion to dismiss Mr. Rajabi’s complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
the Court GRANTED the government’s Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 5] and DISMISSED Mr. Rajabi’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief [Dkt. No. 1]
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
the Court GRANTED the government’s Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 5] and DISMISSED Mr. Rajabi’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief [Dkt. No. 1]
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Because Mr. Rajabi does not identify a clear requirement that the government act further on a visa application once a consular officer has issued a refusal under Section 221(g), his complaint must be dismissed.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Mr. Rajabi has not responded to the government’s argument that this Court should summarily dismiss Mr. Rajabi’s cause of action arising under Section 706(2). See Reply at 2; see generally Opp. Accordingly, this Court considers that argument conceded.
Months pending 18.7 months from the application to the suit; 37.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
A consular officer interviewed Mr. Rajabi regarding his visa application on December 15, 2022.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings No duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal Read by a model
Mr. Rajabi has not identified a discrete, non-discretionary duty that requires the government to act further on his visa application.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Plaintiff Maziar Rajabi, a dual national of Iran and Turkey

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision, this one. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
Rajabi v. Blinken September 30, 2025 Paul L. Friedman Dismissed
Rajabi v. BlinkenThis decisionThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted January 30, 2026 Paul L. Friedman Dismissed

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-01968
Filed
July 6, 2024
Ended
September 30, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
451 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2025-09-30 dismisses for want of jurisdiction; 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.