Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Armah v. United States Department of State

District of ColumbiaBeryl A. HowellDecided May 28, 2024

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
the final action by the agency at issue here—the State Department, against which plaintiff brought suit—was not taken until June 17, 2020, when the State Department’s NVC determined the case was “documentarily qualified,”
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
an order “compelling Defendants to adjudicate a long-delayed immediate relative visa application.”
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
an order “compelling Defendants to adjudicate a long-delayed immediate relative 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 plaintiff’s complaint is granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants now move to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), or, in the alternative, for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On March 22, 2023, defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint under 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
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint is granted.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint is granted.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint is granted.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint is granted.
Months pending 110.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
plaintiff filed the visa application on her daughter’s behalf in March 2015.
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
Taken altogether, the first and second TRAC factors favor defendants.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Expediting review in plaintiff’s daughter’s case “would necessarily come at the expense of other similarly situated applicants, unlike broader relief that would avoid linejumping concerns.”
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
I-130 category Family preference Read by a model
USCIS had granted plaintiff’s request to maintain Ms. Baiden’s F2B visa category

How the case ended

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

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.