Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Utah

Aslam v. United States Department of State

District of UtahDaphne A. ObergDecided September 21, 2023No. 2:22-cv-00701

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
As of that date, the State Department was under a duty to proceed with a consular interview and a final decision on Ms. Idrees’ application.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Mr. Aslam asks the court to issue a “writ of mandamus” compelling Defendants to either (1) adjudicate Ms. Idrees’ visa application within sixty days, (2) issue an immigrant visa to Ms. Idrees, or (3) explain the cause and nature of the delay.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Mr. Aslam asks the court to issue a “writ of mandamus” compelling Defendants to either (1) adjudicate Ms. Idrees’ visa application within sixty days, (2) issue an immigrant visa to Ms. Idrees, or (3) explain the cause and nature of the delay.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. NO. 28)
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
the court6 GRANTS the motion to dismiss and DISMISSES this action without prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
the court6 GRANTS the motion to dismiss and DISMISSES this action without prejudice.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Because the court lacks jurisdiction over Mr. Aslam’s request for mandamus relief, and the complaint otherwise fails to state a claim under the APA or the due process clause, the court6 GRANTS the motion to dismiss and DISMISSES this action without prejudice.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Therefore, Defendants’ motion to dismiss!”° is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
Months pending 19 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
delay in this case has persisted for nineteen months.
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 prioritiesnot reached
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
Where other courts have found visa-adjudication delays longer than the one alleged here were not unreasonable, the first two Qwest factors weigh against Mr. Aslam.
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
Mr. Aslam’s request for mandamus relief is precluded by the availability of judicial review under the APA.
Nationality Pakistan Read by a model
Mr. Aslam’s spouse, Ms. Idrees, is a citizen of Pakistan and currently resides in Pakistan.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Plaintiff Muhammad Aqeel Aslam, a United States citizen, filed an I-130 visa petition on behalf of his wife, Aneesa Idrees, a citizen of Pakistan, on March 16, 2020.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:22-cv-00701
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 37)
Filed
November 3, 2022
Ended
September 21, 2023
Suit's filing to its end
322 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.

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 Tenth 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.