Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Momeni v. Blinken

District of ColumbiaDecided September 27, 2024No. 1:23-cv-03421

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
Although “the Secretary of State has no legal authority to control which visa applications consular officers grant or deny, nothing precludes him from directing them to decide pending applications ‘within a reasonable time,’ as the APA requires.”
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Following approval by the United States Customs and Immigration Services (USCIS), in June 2019, Mr. Momeni and Ms. Honari timely filed their DS-260 visa applications and all required supporting documentation with the National Visa Center (NVC).
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Specifically, alleging that the defendants have unreasonably delayed the processing of Mr. Momeni’s visa application, Plaintiffs seek an order mandating adjudication of Mr. Momeni’s application and reinstatement of Ms. Honari’s immigrant visa.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will GRANT the defendants’ motion and dismiss plaintiffs’ Complaint.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will GRANT the defendants’ motion and dismiss plaintiffs’ Complaint.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will GRANT the defendants’ motion and dismiss plaintiffs’ Complaint.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Here, the Court will follow a similar course of action and dismiss Plaintiffs’ claim of unreasonable delay for failure to state a claim.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will GRANT the defendants’ motion and dismiss plaintiffs’ Complaint.
Months pending 13 months from the application to the suit; 63.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
in June 2019, Mr. Momeni and Ms. Honari timely filed their DS-260 visa applications and all required supporting documentation with the National Visa Center (NVC).
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
As plaintiffs themselves correctly note, TRAC factors 1 and 2 favor defendants in this case because Mr. Momeni had only been waiting sixteen months at the time of filing the opposition (now twenty-three months).
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 Consular nonreviewability applied Read by a model
Therefore, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to re-adjudicate Ms. Honari’s visa because the agency is shielded by the doctrine of consular nonreviewability.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Mr. Momeni and Ms. Honari are Iranian nationals
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Mr. Momeni and Ms. Honari are Iranian nationals and the parents of Pooneh Momeni, a U.S. citizen.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-03421
Filed
November 14, 2023
Ended
September 27, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
318 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. 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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.