Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Chowdhury v. Blinken

District of ColumbiaDecided January 14, 2022No. 1:21-cv-01205

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
Both plaintiffs’ APA claim and mandamus claim rest on the same theory: that the Department of State unreasonably delayed the adjudication of Ahmed’s visa.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiffs promptly submitted the necessary forms and fees, including the DS-260, and on August 3, 2020, the NVC notified plaintiffs that it had received all forms necessary.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs Tania Chowdhury and Sakif Ahmed filed a complaint and petition for writ of mandamus to compel defendant Secretary of State Antony Blinken to adjudicate Ahmed’s immigrant visa application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
this court will GRANT defendant’s motion to dismiss on both the Administrative Procedure Act claim and a mandamus claim.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendant moves to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, arguing that the pace of Ahmed’s application process is not unreasonable as a matter of law.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendant moves to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, arguing that the pace of Ahmed’s application process is not unreasonable as a matter of law.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
After reviewing these motions, the complaint, and the facts of this case, this court will GRANT defendant’s motion to dismiss on both the Administrative Procedure Act claim and a mandamus claim.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
After reviewing these motions, the complaint, and the facts of this case, this court will GRANT defendant’s motion to dismiss on both the Administrative Procedure Act claim and a mandamus claim.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
this court will GRANT defendant’s motion to dismiss on both the Administrative Procedure Act claim and a mandamus claim.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
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
In this context, combined with the case law and the lack of a statutory guideline, this Court finds that TRAC factors one and two weigh in defendant’s favor.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Granting plaintiffs’ “requested relief would simply move them ahead in the processing queue to the detriment of other similarly situated visa applicants.”
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Bangladesh Read by a model
Seeking to bring her husband Sakif Ahmed, a national of Bangladesh, to the United States
I-130 category Family preference Read by a model
Plaintiff Tania Chowdhury is a permanent legal resident of the United States. Compl. ¶ 3. Seeking to bring her husband Sakif Ahmed, a national of Bangladesh, to the United States, she filed the required I-130 petition on May 10, 2019.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:21-cv-01205
Filed
May 3, 2021
Ended
January 14, 2022
Suit's filing to its end
256 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.

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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.