Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Neupane Mahmood v. United States Department of Homeland Security

District of ColumbiaRudolph ContrerasDecided December 20, 2021

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
The parties also agree that the next step is for DOS to conduct the visa interview with Mr. Mahmood at a consular office.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Mahmood’s immigrant visa application is unlawful, requiring that this Court compel the Government to act.
What the suit asked for Schedule an interview Read by a model
The Government moves to dismiss Plaintiff ’s unreasonable delay claim under Rule 12(b)(6) on the grounds that the delay in scheduling Mr. Mahmood’s interview is not unreasonable as a matter of law.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
The Government moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against DHS, USCIS, and their respective heads under Rule 12(b)(1) as moot. See Mot. at 5–6. Additionally, the Government moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s remaining claims under Rule 12(b)(6). Id.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Now before the Court is the Government’s motion to dismiss Ms. Mahmood’s complaint.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Therefore, this claim is dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 4) is GRANTED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Nevertheless, an application of all six TRAC factors shows that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim at this time. Therefore, this claim is dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
For the reasons set forth below, the C ourt grants the Government’s motion to dismiss all these claim s.
Months pending Not stated at filing The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
As established above, the d elay at issue here was approximately twenty -fi ve months.
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
this Court finds that the first two TRAC factors weigh in favor of the Government.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
The fourth TRAC factor weighs in favor of Defendants . This factor requires courts to consider the “effect of expediting delayed action on agency activities of a higher or competing priority.”
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims against USCIS, DHS, and their respective heads are dismissed as moot under Rule 12(b)(1).
Nationality Iraq Read by a model
Ms. Mahmood, a U .S. citizen, is the spouse of Khalat Nidhamaldeen Mahmood, a citizen of Iraq.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Ms. Mahmood, a U .S. citizen, is the spouse of Khalat Nidhamaldeen Mahmood, a citizen of Iraq.

How the case ended

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

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.