Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Colorado

Azadani v. Gaudiosi

District of ColoradoCharlotte N. SweeneyDecided January 6, 2025No. 1:24-cv-00825

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
The Court finds that the consular officer did not make a final decision, so the doctrine of consular nonreviewability does not apply.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiff, a U.S. citizen living in Colorado, seeks an order expediting the readjudication of his mother’s visa application.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Plaintiff, a U.S. citizen living in Colorado, seeks an order expediting the readjudication of his mother’s visa application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the following reasons, the Court grants the motion in part and denies it in part.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Complaint for Injunctive Relief.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Complaint for Injunctive Relief.
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 DENIES the motion to dismiss as to the APA claim (claim 1).
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
The Court DENIES the motion to dismiss as to the APA claim (claim 1).
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
The Court DENIES the motion to dismiss as to the APA claim (claim 1).
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Because Plaintiff has not identified a constitutionally protected interest sufficient to support a due process claim, this claim is dismissed.
Months pending 9.4 months from the application to the suit; 18.8 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
United Arab Emirates in June 2023. Id., ¶ 21.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Mootness argument rejected; Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found; APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
The Court finds that the consular officer did not make a final decision, so the doctrine of consular nonreviewability does not apply.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Plaintiff, a U.S. citizen living in Colorado, seeks an order expediting the readjudication of his mother’s visa application.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-00825
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 12), deciding the motion (ECF 9)
Filed
March 26, 2024
Ended
March 12, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
351 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 12 (dismissed: voluntarily)

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why. Other suits in this court.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision, and the motion number is read from that entry's text. 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.