Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Azeez v. Murphy

District of ColumbiaChristopher R. CooperDecided August 23, 2024No. 1:23-cv-01947

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
After the interview, the officer notified Azeez’s parents that the petitions had been designated as “refused” while the State Department gathered additional information.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Though his parents received an interview at the U.S. Embassy in the UAE in February 2023, their applications were initially “refused” and placed into “administrative processing.”
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Instead, he contends that the agency has unreasonably delayed the completion of administrative processing.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the Court will grant the government’s motion and dismiss the case.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
The defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
In response, the government has moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For these reasons, the Court will dismiss the complaint and the case in a separate order that accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
the Court will grant the government’s motion and dismiss the case.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For these reasons, the Court will dismiss the complaint and the case in a separate order that accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
As Azeez has not pointed to any constitutionally protected interest at stake, the Court must dismiss Count 3.
Months pending 4.9 months from the application to the suit; 18.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
a consular officer at the U.S. Embassy in the UAE interviewed Khaloo and Mohammed in February 2023.
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
Factors one, two, and four favor the defendants, factor six is neutral, and factors three and five, while favoring Azeez, do not overcome the others.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
The fourth TRAC factor also favors the government, as “a judicial order” putting Azeez’s parents’ applications “at the head of the queue,” as he requests, would “move[] all others back one space and produce[] no net gain.”
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected Read by a model
Therefore, because Azeez contests an alleged delay rather than a substantive decision, the doctrine of consular nonreviewability poses no bar to the Court’s review.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Mr. Azeez is a U.S. citizen who resides in Hartford, Connecticut, with his wife and son. Compl. ¶¶ 8, 11. His parents, Nawal Khaloo and Mohammed Azeez Mohammed, live in the UAE.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-01947
Filed
July 6, 2023
Ended
August 23, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
414 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.