Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Colorado

Niknam v. United States Department of State

District of ColoradoPhilip A. BrimmerDecided February 21, 2024No. 1:23-cv-01380

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,996 written decisions from 2,731 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided November 12, 2026. Updated November 14, 2026 at 1:17 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 1,617 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,406 (87%), 1,039 of them in this group, measured November 14, 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
Ms. Niknam identifies no other statute or regulation that establishes a clear, nondiscretionary duty for State Department officials to schedule visa interviews for a family-based visa petition.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Defendants have a nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate Plaintiff’s sister’s visa application in a timely manner and in order to make a decision, the consular officer must conduct an interview first.
What the suit asked for Schedule an interview Read by a model
The Court finds that Ms. Niknam has failed to establish that defendants have a specific, nondiscretionary duty to schedule her sister’s visa interview.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 9] 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 all claims pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss all claims pursuant to 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
It is further ORDERED that plaintiff’s first claim is DISMISSED without prejudice. It is further ORDERED that plaintiff’s second claim is DISMISSED with prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 9] is GRANTED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The Court therefore grants this portion of defendants’ motion and dismisses the APA unreasonable delay claim without prejudice.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
It is further ORDERED that plaintiff’s first claim is DISMISSED without prejudice. It is further ORDERED that plaintiff’s second claim is DISMISSED with prejudice.
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
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Plaintiff’s sister, Mehrnoush Niknam, is a citizen of Iran and currently resides in Tehran, Iran.
I-130 category Family preference Read by a model
Plaintiff Mehrnaz Niknam is a citizen of the United States. Docket No. 1 at 2, ¶ 1. Plaintiff’s sister, Mehrnoush Niknam, is a citizen of Iran and currently resides in Tehran, Iran.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-01380
Filed
June 1, 2023
Ended
February 21, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
265 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 3 (dismissed: lack of jurisdiction)

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 Tenth 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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.