Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Sharifishourabi v. Blinken

District of ColumbiaRudolph ContrerasDecided July 29, 2024No. 1:23-cv-03382

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
Defendant maintains that consular officials have the sole power to adjudicate visa applications, that the Secretary of State cannot compel further action on Plaintiffs’ visa applications, and, thus, that the Secretary cannot take any action that would redress Plaintiffs’ injury.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
In December 2019, he filed an immigrant visa application under an approved EB-2 national interest waiver with the NVC.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
On November 10, 2023—just over a year and a half after the consular officer refused their visa applications to conduct additional security screening—Dr. Sharifishourabi and his wife filed a two-count complaint to compel the Secretary to adjudicate their family’s applications.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 7) is GRANTED and Plaintiffs’ motion to compel (ECF No. 8) is DENIED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
The Secretary has moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 7) is GRANTED and Plaintiffs’ motion to compel (ECF No. 8) is DENIED.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 7) is GRANTED and Plaintiffs’ motion to compel (ECF No. 8) is DENIED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The Court rejects Defendant’s first three arguments but grants the motion on the ground that Plaintiffs fail to state viable claims for relief.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The Court rejects Defendant’s first three arguments but grants the motion on the ground that Plaintiffs fail to state viable claims for relief.
Months pending 46.9 months from the application to the suit; 55.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
In December 2019, he filed an immigrant visa application under an approved EB-2 national interest waiver with the 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 government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
The first two TRAC factors weigh in Defendant’s favor.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
For all of these reasons, the Court finds that the fourth TRAC factor weighs in Defendant’s favor.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Iran Read by a model
citizens of both Iran and Canada

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-03382
Filed
November 10, 2023
Ended
July 30, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
263 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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.