Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Shoaie v. Blinken

District of ColumbiaG. Michael HarveyDecided November 6, 2024No. 1:24-cv-01513

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
On January 19, 2023, Applicant Plaintiffs were interviewed concerning their immigrant visa applications by the Consular Section of the U.S. Embassy in Ankara, Turkey.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
On May 6, 2019, Applicant Plaintiffs paid the required filing fees and filed a Form DS-260 and supporting documents.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
generally claiming that the delay in processing Applicant Plaintiffs’ visa applications is unreasonable and seeking an order compelling the government to adjudicate the applications within 21 days.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons discussed above, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss on the ground that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for unreasonable delay.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
For the reasons discussed above, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss on the ground that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for unreasonable delay.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss three of the complaint’s four counts under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
The Court will dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims of unreasonable delay—Counts I, II, and IV.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
The Court will dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims of unreasonable delay—Counts I, II, and IV.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The Court will dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims of unreasonable delay—Counts I, II, and IV.
The other claims The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Accordingly, Count III will go forward.
Months pending 66.1 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On May 6, 2019, Applicant Plaintiffs paid the required filing fees and filed a Form DS-260 and supporting documents.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablenot reached
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
Both the first factor, which has been called the “most important,” In re Core Commc’ns, 531 F.3d at 855, and the fourth, which the D.C. Circuit has at times treated as dispositive, see Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Council, 336 F.3d at 1100 (D.C. Cir. 2003), support Defendants’ position.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
and the fourth, which the D.C. Circuit has at times treated as dispositive, see Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Council, 336 F.3d at 1100 (D.C. Cir. 2003), support Defendants’ position.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Applicant Plaintiffs are citizens of Iran seeking to enter the United States on a family-sponsored immigrant visa.
I-130 category Family preference Read by a model
Plaintiff Farhad Shoaie (“Plaintiff Shoaie”) is a U.S. citizen and the petitioner of a Form I- 130 Petition for Alien Relative seeking a family-sponsored immigrant visa on behalf of their 1 sibling, Plaintiff Faramarz Showaii

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
Shoaie v. BlinkenThis decision November 6, 2024 G. Michael Harvey Dismissed in part; some claims go on
SHOAIE v. BLINKENThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted April 28, 2026 G. Michael Harvey Dismissed

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-01513
Filed
May 22, 2024
Ended
April 28, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
706 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.

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.