Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Maryland

Parva v. Blinken

District of MarylandTheodore D. ChuangDecided September 4, 2024No. 8:23-cv-03287

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
On December 4, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the Complaint in this case, pursuant to the APA and the Mandamus Act, in which they request an order from the Court compelling the State Department to adjudicate the applications within 30 days.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
In October 2020, Parva submitted to the NVC a Form DS-260 and additional documents on behalf of herself and derivative visa applications on behalf of her husband, daughter, and son, all citizens of Iran.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
On December 4, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the Complaint in this case, pursuant to the APA and the Mandamus Act, in which they request an order from the Court compelling the State Department to adjudicate the applications within 30 days.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss will be GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
The Motion to Dismiss is filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), based on an alleged lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and under Rule 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendant (“the State Department’) has filed a Motion to Dismiss.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
the Court does not find that Plaintiffs have stated a plausible claim for relief based on unreasonable delay and will thus grant the Motion to Dismiss.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
the Court does not find that Plaintiffs have stated a plausible claim for relief based on unreasonable delay and will thus grant the Motion to Dismiss.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
the Court does not find that Plaintiffs have stated a plausible claim for relief based on unreasonable delay and will thus grant the Motion to Dismiss.
Months pending 37.6 months from the application to the suit; 46.7 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
In October 2020, Parva submitted to the NVC a Form DS-260 and additional documents on behalf of herself and derivative visa applications on behalf of her husband, daughter, and son, all citizens of Iran.
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, second, and fourth factors strongly favor the State Department
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
to dispute the presumption that granting relief would simply re-order the processing line. /d. at *12. Here, where Plaintiffs have not done so, this factor weighs against them.
Threshold rulings Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found Read by a model
Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that there is a mandatory duty to reconsider the refusal and adjudicate the visa applications.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
In October 2020, Parva submitted to the NVC a Form DS-260 and additional documents on behalf of herself and derivative visa applications on behalf of her husband, daughter, and son, all citizens of Iran.
I-130 category Family preference Read by a model
The Form I-130 was approved and forwarded to the National Visa Center (“NVC”), which is part of the State Department, but a visa did not become available pursuant to applicable numerical limits until 2020

How the case ended

Docket
No. 8:23-cv-03287
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 16)
Filed
December 4, 2023
Ended
September 4, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
275 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.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

Supreme Court and Fourth 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.