Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Connecticut

Gharedaghi v. Blinken

District of ConnecticutVictor A. BoldenDecided August 8, 2025No. 3:24-cv-01798

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
“The doctrine of consular non-reviewability ‘holds that a consular official’s decision to issue or withhold a visa is not subject to judicial review, at least unless Congress says otherwise.’”
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
On October 19, 2023, Ms. Mohammadi allegedly completed her DS-260 immigrant visa interview.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
for a writ of mandamus to compel Defendants to complete the adjudication of Ms. Mohammadi’s immigrant visa application within a reasonable time.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the following reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is GRANTED, and their motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) is DENIED as moot.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is GRANTED, and their motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) is DENIED as moot.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint under 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
This case is dismissed with prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
This case is dismissed with prejudice.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, because the doctrine of consular nonreviewability bars Plaintiffs’ claims under the APA and Mandamus Act, the Court will grant the motion to dismiss.
Months pending 12.8 months from the application to the suit; 21.7 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On October 19, 2023, Ms. Mohammadi allegedly completed her DS-260 immigrant visa interview.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablenot reached
  • 3. Human health and welfarenot reached
  • 4. Competing prioritiesnot reached
  • 5. Interests prejudicednot reached
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
Plaintiffs fail to show that a delay of approximately two years is unreasonable.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability applied; APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
Accordingly, because the doctrine of consular nonreviewability bars Plaintiffs’ claims under the APA and Mandamus Act, the Court will grant the motion to dismiss.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:24-cv-01798
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 19), deciding the motion (ECF 12)
Filed
November 13, 2024
Ended
August 12, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
272 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant

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 Second 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.