Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Ahmed v. United States Department of Homeland Security

District of ColumbiaAmit Priyavadan MehtaDecided February 11, 2022

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
There is no statutory or regulatory timeline that provides a “rule of reason” to govern the State Department’s adjudication of a visa application.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Compl. in the Nature of Mandamus Arising from Defs.’ Refusal to Adjudicate Pl.’s Immigrant Visa Appl., ECF No. 1 [hereinafter Compl.], ¶¶ 14, 16.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiff claims that the Government has unreasonably delayed adjudicating his wife’s visa application and seeks relief for that delay under the APA.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 4, is granted in full.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
The Government has moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or, in the alternative, for summary judgment .
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The Government has moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or, in the alternative, for summary judgment .
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 4, is granted in full.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 4, is granted in full.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 4, is granted in full.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 4, is granted in full.
Months pending 47.6 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
he first filed a Form I -130 for Ms. Siddiqui on February 22, 2018
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
Courts generally consider the first two TRAC factors together, Dastagir , 2021 WL 2894645, at *3–4, and here, they weigh in favor of the Government.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
The fourth factor , which considers how a court order in P laintiff’s favor would shift existing agency priorities, also weighs in favor of the Government.
Threshold rulings Mootness argument rejected Read by a model
The jurisdictional problem here is not that Plaintiff’s claims against DHS and USCIS defendants disappeared over the course of the litigation (i.e., became moot).
Nationality Pakistan Read by a model
his wife, Aleena Siddiqui, a citizen of Pakistan.
I-130 category Family preference Read by a model
Plaintiff Syed Rizwan Ahmed is a lawful permanent resident of the United States who has filed a spouse visa application on behalf of his wife, Aleena Siddiqui, a citizen of Pakistan.

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.