Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Alhaj Hamdan v. Oudkirk

District of ColumbiaBeryl A. HowellDecided October 23, 2024No. 1:24-cv-01001

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
and Antony Blinken, Secretary of the U.S. Department of State, in their official capacities (collectively, “defendants”), to adjudicate his immigrant visa application
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
As of September 26, 2024, plaintiff’s application for an immigrant visa to the United States appears to have been refused.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
On April 9, 2024, just over five months after plaintiff’s visa application was placed in “administrative processing,” plaintiff filed a two-count complaint to compel defendants to adjudicate his visa application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim for relief, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), is granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim for relief, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), is granted.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On June 10, 2024, defendants 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 the Complaint for failure to state a claim for relief, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), is granted.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Plaintiff’s Complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiff’s Complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Months pending 5.3 months from the application to the suit; 11.8 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
After an interview at the U.S. Embassy in Ankara, Turkey, on October 31, 2023, plaintiff was informed that his visa application had been “refus[ed]” and “placed in administrative processing,”
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfarenot reached
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicednot reached
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
Taken together, the first and second factors weigh in defendants’ favor.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
the fact that granting plaintiff relief would merely reorder his visa application in the queue, all support the conclusion that the delay in adjudication of plaintiff’s visa application is not unreasonable.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Syria Read by a model
Plaintiff Mohamad Alhaj Hamdan, a citizen of Syria and Turkey
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
In June 2021, Naiomy Declet Serrano, a United States citizen, submitted an I-130 visa application with USCIS on behalf of her husband, Mohamad Alhaj Hamdan, the plaintiff in this action and a citizen of Syria and Turkey.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-01001
Filed
April 9, 2024
Ended
October 23, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
197 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.