Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Aboutalebi v. Department of State

District of ColumbiaTimothy J. KellyDecided December 18, 2019No. 1:19-cv-02605

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
But Defendants represent that her “visa application was finally adjudicated by a consular officer in the Nonimmigrant Visa Unit of the U.S. Embassy in London,” Supp. Opp’n at 7, and there appears no reason to question their representation.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
To do so, she needed a J-1 Visa, which she applied for at the U.S. Embassy in London in May 2018. Id. ¶¶ 13, 24. By August of the following year, her application was allegedly still “in administrative processing pending final adjudication.”
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Count III asks the Court to declare that she is eligible for a visa and to “order the Defendants to adjudicate and promptly issue the J-1 Visa to the Plaintiff.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
As explained below, the Court agrees and will dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
About two weeks after filing suit, Aboutalebi moved for a preliminary injunction, or, in the alternative, for a temporary restraining order.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Aboutalebi’s first two counts—and part of her third—complain that Defendants have not adjudicated her visa. Defendants have now done that. See ECF No. 9-1. Thus, she has received the precise relief she sought, and these claims must be dismissed as moot.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Aboutalebi’s first two counts—and part of her third—complain that Defendants have not adjudicated her visa. Defendants have now done that. See ECF No. 9-1. Thus, she has received the precise relief she sought, and these claims must be dismissed as moot.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Aboutalebi’s first two counts—and part of her third—complain that Defendants have not adjudicated her visa. Defendants have now done that. See ECF No. 9-1. Thus, she has received the precise relief she sought, and these claims must be dismissed as moot.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Because the Court lacks jurisdiction over each of Aboutalebi’s claims in the complaint, it must dismiss this case in its entirety.
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
To do so, she needed a J-1 Visa, which she applied for at the U.S. Embassy in London in May 2018.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability applied; Held moot Read by a model
And under controlling precedent, the Court cannot review that final decision under the doctrine of consular nonreviewability.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Zahra Aboutalebi, an Iranian citizen
212(f) proclamation Proclamation 9932 Read by a model
she had been found “ineligible for a visa under Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, pursuant to Presidential Proclamation 9932.”

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:19-cv-02605
Filed
August 28, 2019
Ended
December 18, 2019
Suit's filing to its end
112 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
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.