Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Arabzada v. Donis

District of ColumbiaRudolph ContrerasDecided March 19, 2024No. 1:23-cv-00655

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 USCIS Read by a model
Here, USCIS has exceeded the statutory timeline for adjudication of an I-589 asylum application: over three years have elapsed without Arabzada receiving an interview—let alone an adjudication of her application.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
In December 2020, Plaintiff filed an I-589 asylum application with USCIS.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
based on allegations that the Government has unreasonably delayed the adjudication of her I-589 asylum application.
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. 8) is GRANTED.
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 part of Arabzada’s case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and moves to dismiss the rest of Arabzada’s case for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss
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. 8) is GRANTED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Here, the Court finds that Arabzada has failed to state a claim for relief because the duration she has waited for adjudication of her asylum visa application is not unreasonable under this Circuit’s precedents.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Arabzada, therefore, cannot state a Fifth Amendment Due Process claim.
Months pending 39.1 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
In December 2020, Plaintiff filed an I-589 asylum application with USCIS.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the applicant
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
The Court concludes that the first TRAC factor weighs in favor of Defendants.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court joins other jurisdictions that have held that the Government’s LIFO policy for I-589 asylum applications constitutes a rule of reason.
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
Because the APA provides an “adequate remedy,” mandamus relief is not available here.
Nationality Afghanistan Read by a model
Arabzada is a citizen of Afghanistan.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-00655
Filed
March 9, 2023
Ended
April 1, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
389 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.