Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Barazandeh v. U.S. Department of State

District of ColumbiaBeryl A. HowellDecided January 30, 2024No. 1:23-cv-01581

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
Here, plaintiff does not challenge a consular officer’s adjudication of his visa application and seeks only timely adjudication of his visa application.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
to adjudicate his immigrant visa application, which has now been in administrative processing for approximately twenty months.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
to adjudicate his immigrant visa application, which has now been in administrative processing for approximately twenty months.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants, in turn, have moved to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants, in turn, have moved to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint under Federal Rule 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
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.
Months pending 12.5 months from the application to the suit; 20.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff was then granted a consular interview at the U.S. Embassy in Yerevan, Armenia, where he was interviewed on May 18, 2022.
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 needednot reached
Read by a model
The first and second TRAC weigh in defendants’ favor because the delay in adjudicating plaintiff’s visa application—just under thirteen months—is not unreasonable.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
The relatively minimal thirteen-month delay, prior case law, and the fact that granting plaintiff relief would merely reorder his application in the queue, all support the conclusion that the delay in adjudication of plaintiff’s visa is not unreasonable.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected Read by a model
Given that plaintiff is still awaiting a final decision on his visa application, the consular nonreviewability doctrine does not bar review since the “refusal” plaintiff received was “merely provisional, with a final decision yet to come.”
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Plaintiff Gholamreza Barazandeh, a citizen of Iran
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
On April 6, 2021, Mohammad Barazandeh, a U.S. citizen, filed an I-130 visa application with USCIS on behalf of his father, who is the plaintiff in this action and a citizen of Iran.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-01581
Filed
June 2, 2023
Ended
January 31, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
243 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.