Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Didban v. Pompeo

District of ColumbiaChristopher R. CooperDecided January 15, 2020No. 1:19-cv-00881

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
Plaintiffs do not seek to compel the Government to grant Ms. Rostami a waiver, but merely “challeng[e] the Embassy’s authority to refuse to adjudicate Plaintiff Rostami’s immigrant visa application.”
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
On July 16, 2017, Ms. Rostami submitted her DS-260 form, along with the applicable fees and documents.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs request an order directing the Government to adjudicate Ms. Rostami’s waiver application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant 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
It raises various objections under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) to this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Even assuming that this Court has jurisdiction, the Government also argues that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The Government moves to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
Months pending 30 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On July 16, 2017, Ms. Rostami submitted her DS-260 form, along with the applicable fees and documents.
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
As applied here, the first and second TRAC factors strongly favor the Government.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
The fourth TRAC factor also favors the Government, as the effect of compelling agency action on Ms. Rostami’s waiver application would “impose offsetting burdens on equally worthy” applicants by putting her “at the head of the queue,”
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Mootness argument rejected Read by a model
Because Plaintiffs do not seek review of a consular officer’s decision, the doctrine of consular non-reviewability does not apply.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
his wife, Fataneh Rostami, an Iranian national
212(f) proclamation Proclamation 9645 Read by a model
At the conclusion of the interview, Ms. Rostami’s visa application was refused pursuant to the Proclamation.
I-130 category Family preference Read by a model
Plaintiffs Saman Didban, a United States legal permanent resident, and his wife, Fataneh Rostami, an Iranian national, submitted a waiver application two years ago that the Government has not yet processed.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:19-cv-00881
Filed
March 27, 2019
Ended
January 15, 2020
Suit's filing to its end
294 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.

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.