Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Missouri

Motaref v. United States Department of State

Western District of MissouriGreg KaysDecided July 9, 2024No. 4:23-cv-00881

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
This lawsuit concerns an allegation of unreasonable delay in the adjudication of Plaintiff’s sister’s visa application by the United States Department of State.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
This lawsuit concerns an allegation of unreasonable delay in the adjudication of Plaintiff’s sister’s visa application by the United States Department of State.
What the suit asked for Schedule an interview Read by a model
Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendants to schedule an interview and decide the application and also to enjoin Defendants from using CARRP.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
ORDER GRANTING 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
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s 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’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint is GRANTED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint is GRANTED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The motion to dismiss is granted with respect to Count I.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint is GRANTED.
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 Niloofar Motaref (“sister”), brother-in-law, and niece are citizens of Iran, a predominantly Muslim country, and currently reside there.
I-130 category Family preference Read by a model
Plaintiff Alex Heydar Motaref is a citizen of the United States. Plaintiff’s sister Niloofar Motaref (“sister”), brother-in-law, and niece are citizens of Iran, a predominantly Muslim country, and currently reside there.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 4:23-cv-00881
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 8), deciding the motion (ECF 5)
Filed
December 4, 2023
Ended
July 11, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
220 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.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision, and the motion number is read from that entry's text. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

Supreme Court and Eighth 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.