Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Afghan and Iraqi Allies v. Pompeo

District of ColumbiaTanya S. ChutkanDecided January 30, 2019No. 1:18-cv-01388

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
In response to various threats and acts of violence, Plaintiffs submitted Special Immigrant Visa (“SIV”) applications to the U.S. Department of State, seeking lawful admission into the United States.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
In response to various threats and acts of violence, Plaintiffs submitted Special Immigrant Visa (“SIV”) applications to the U.S. Department of State, seeking lawful admission into the United States.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs seek final adjudication of their applications; not a specific outcome.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Upon consideration of Defendants’ motion and the parties’ briefs in support thereof and in opposition thereto, and for the reasons set forth below, the motion is hereby DENIED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants have moved, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), to partially dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants have moved, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), to partially dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
Disposition Denied in the applicant's favor The principal motion was denied in full: a motion to dismiss denied so the case goes on, or relief denied on the merits. Read by a model
Defendants’ motion for partial dismissal of the Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), and for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is hereby DENIED.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
Defendants’ motion for partial dismissal of the Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), and for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is hereby DENIED.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Upon consideration of Defendants’ motion and the parties’ briefs in support thereof and in opposition thereto, and for the reasons set forth below, the motion is hereby DENIED.
The other claims Not decided here Read by a model
(iii) compel Defendants to appoint two SIV coordinators.
Months pending 56.5 months from the application to the suit; 64.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Mr. Doe-Alpha is an Afghan national who applied to the SIV program on September 25, 2013, following approximately two years of service to a United States government contractor.
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 Read by a model
They do not seek judicial review of a consular decision, but instead seek a final decision on their applications.
Nationality Afghanistan Read by a model
Mr. Doe-Alpha is an Afghan national

Other orders in this case

The group holds 9 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
Afghan and Iraqi Allies v. PompeoThis decision January 30, 2019 Tanya S. Chutkan Denied in the applicant's favor
Afghan and Iraqi Allies v. Pompeo September 20, 2019 Tanya S. Chutkan Granted in part
Afghan and Iraqi Allies v. Pompeo February 5, 2020 Tanya S. Chutkan Granted in the applicant's favor
Afghan and Iraqi Allies v. Pompeo February 5, 2020 Tanya S. Chutkan Denied in the applicant's favor
Afghan and Iraqi Allies v. Blinken November 30, 2022 Tanya S. Chutkan Granted in part
AFGHAN AND IRAQI ALLIES v. POMPEO October 9, 2024 Tanya S. Chutkan Denied, neither side prevailed
Afghan and Iraqi Allies v. Pompeo June 5, 2025 Tanya S. Chutkan Granted in part
Afghan and Iraqi Allies v. Pompeo June 6, 2025 Tanya S. Chutkan Dismissed in part; some claims go on
Afghan and Iraqi Allies v. PompeoThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted February 6, 2026 Tanya S. Chutkan Granted in the applicant's favor

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:18-cv-01388
Filed
June 12, 2018
Status
Pending as of the last docket check

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.