Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Sarlak v. Pompeo

District of ColumbiaBeryl A. HowellDecided June 10, 2020No. 1:20-cv-00035

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
That same day, the consular section at the U.S. Embassy in Ankara also contacted Abdoli “to request additional documents and information.”
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
the consular officer refused the immigrant visa applications in accordance with Presidential Proclamation 9645
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
Abdoli claims that adjudication of his waiver “ha[s] been unreasonably delayed.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons explained below, defendants’ motion 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 have filed a motion 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
Defendants have filed a motion 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).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims related to Abdoli for failure to state a claim is also granted.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims related to Abdoli for failure to state a claim is also granted.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the reasons given, defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims related to Sarlak and Arshia as moot is granted. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims related to Abdoli for failure to state a claim is also granted.
Months pending Not stated at filing The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
Although this testimony suggests that Abdoli’s two-year wait may be unusual, the testimony does not suggest that delays of longer than a few days are unreasonable.
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 neededneutral
Read by a model
The first and second TRAC factors weigh in favor of defendants.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Granting Abdoli the relief he seeks would put him “at the head of the queue[,] simply mov[ing] all others back one space and produc[ing] no net gain.” In re Barr Labs., Inc., 930 F.2d 72, 75 (D.C. Cir. 1991). Such “reordering[s]” are inappropriate.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Held moot; Mootness argument rejected Read by a model
The Doctrine of Consular Nonreviewability Does Not Apply to Abdoli’s Claim That Action on His Waiver Application Has Been Unreasonably Delayed.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Plaintiff Nasrin Sarlak, a citizen of Iran,
212(f) proclamation Proclamation 9645 Read by a model
the consular officer refused the immigrant visa applications in accordance with Presidential Proclamation 9645,

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:20-cv-00035
Filed
January 7, 2020
Ended
June 11, 2020
Suit's filing to its end
156 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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.