Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Zandieh v. Pompeo

District of ColumbiaJames E. BoasbergDecided July 29, 2020No. 1:20-cv-00919

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
To compel the Government to act, Plaintiffs have filed the present action against the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the U.S. Embassy in Ankara, Turkey.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
refused the immigrant visa application of Mr. Zandieh,” but automatically “considered [him] for a waiver of the proclamation’s entry restrictions” on February 21, 2018.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
They instead seek review of Defendants’ failure to adjudicate Zandieh’s waiver eligibility within a reasonable time and ask this Court to direct the Government to “make a decision on his waiver.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants now move to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants now move to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 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
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
With these factors in mind, the Court ultimately concludes that Plaintiffs have not stated an unreasonable-delay claim under the APA.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
This Court once again “declines the invitation” to follow Bustamante, and it finds that Plaintiffs have not stated a claim under the Fifth Amendment.
Months pending 40.7 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
they completed their visa interviews on March 9, 2017, at the U.S. Embassy in Ankara.
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 two TRAC factors favor the Government.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
The fourth factor, conversely, which requires accounting for the effects of expedited action on “agency activities of equal or greater priority,” favors the Government.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Mootness argument rejected Read by a model
the Court holds that the Government’s reliance on consular nonreviewability is misplaced and that the doctrine does not bar judicial review here.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
her Iranian-national father, Mohammadhossein Zandieh (Zandieh)
212(f) proclamation Proclamation 9645 Read by a model
Presidential Proclamation 9645, issued on September 24, 2017, established additional immigration restrictions that affect Zandieh’s application.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Wishing to bring her parents to the United States, Shadi Zandieh (Shadi), a U.S. citizen

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:20-cv-00919
Filed
April 7, 2020
Ended
July 29, 2020
Suit's filing to its end
113 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.