Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

IBRAHIM v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

District of ColumbiaBeryl Alaine HowellDecided May 26, 2020No. 1:19-cv-00610

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
The Embassy “tr[ies] in all cases to keep that from happening to the aliens who apply for immigrant visas at [its] consular section.”
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
The plaintiffs fear that this is an intentional “strategy: deny Ms. Zaben an immigrant visa because her current medical exam will soon be expiring.”
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
an order that Defendants: (A) maintain their existing policy of allowing immigrant visa applicants to submit updated medicals;
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 26, is DENIED.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 26, is DENIED.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
The plaintiffs have filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Disposition Denied in the government's favor The principal motion was denied in full: a motion to dismiss denied so the case goes on, or relief denied on the merits. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 26, is DENIED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 26, is DENIED.
The delay claim Not decided here Read by a model
the plaintiffs focus on whether the defendants have unreasonably delayed adjudication of Ms. Zaben’s application, see Pls.’ Mem. at 8–12, but that issue is properly addressed at summary judgment, and is irrelevant to the current dispute.
The other claims Relief denied Read by a model
ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 26, is DENIED.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

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
IBRAHIM v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE April 8, 2020 Beryl Alaine Howell Dismissed in part; some claims go on
IBRAHIM v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATEThis decisionThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted May 26, 2020 Beryl Alaine Howell Denied in the government's favor

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:19-cv-00610
Filed
March 5, 2019
Ended
April 20, 2021
Suit's filing to its end
777 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 12 (dismissed: voluntarily)

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.