Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Rahman v. Bouldin

District of ColumbiaTrevor N. McFaddenDecided November 21, 2025No. 1:25-cv-01836

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,917 written decisions from 2,664 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 7:07 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
The Court will dismiss Rahman’s claims against the Secretary of State because consular officers—not the Secretary—have exclusive authority to adjudicate visa applications.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
As Rahman concedes, a consular officer adjudicated and refused her visa application under INA § 221(g).
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
After multiple inquiries, Rahman learned that her application has been denied but remains in administrative processing. Disheartened by the delay, Rahman sues to compel the Government to more quickly adjudicate her application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The Court will grant the Government’s motion.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
The Government’s dismissal request invokes Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The Government moves to dismiss the case.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
The Court will therefore dismiss Rahman’s case.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The Court will grant the Government’s motion.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The Court will therefore dismiss Rahman’s case.
Months pending 14.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
To that end, Rahman interviewed in September 2024 at the U.S. embassy in Bangladesh.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability applied; No duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal Read by a model
Rahman’s suit also founders on consular nonreviewability.
Nationality Bangladesh Read by a model
Tahsin Rahman is a Bangladeshi citizen who wishes to live in the United States with her husband.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Rahman’s husband, himself a U.S. citizen, filed a visa petition for her to join him, and she interviewed at the U.S. embassy in Bangladesh.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-01836
Filed
June 11, 2025
Ended
November 21, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
163 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2025-11-21 for the defendants, ground not stated; idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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.