Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

ESMAEILZADEH v. BLINKEN

District of ColumbiaG. Michael HarveyDecided July 7, 2025No. 1:25-cv-00076

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
On June 10, 2024, Plaintiffs were interviewed concerning their immigrant visa application by the Consular Section of the U.S. Embassy in Ankara, Turkey.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
On August 3, 2022, after completing an I-140 petition, receiving a consular case number, and paying the required processing fees, Plaintiffs submitted a DS-260 immigrant visa application with supporting documentation.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Plaintiffs bring this suit to compel Defendants the Secretary of State and the Director of the National Vetting Center to promptly complete the administrative processing and adjudication of their visa application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons stated, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
A separate Order dismissing the complaint will issue.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons stated, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the reasons stated, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Months pending 35.1 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On August 3, 2022, after completing an I-140 petition, receiving a consular case number, and paying the required processing fees, Plaintiffs submitted a DS-260 immigrant visa application with supporting documentation.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings No duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal Read by a model
Plaintiffs have failed to establish that Defendants have a crystal-clear, nondiscretionary duty to take further action on their visa application that has been placed in administrative processing following its refusal under Section 221(g).
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Plaintiff Hossein Esmaeilzadeh is an Iranian national

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-00076
Filed
January 11, 2025
Ended
July 7, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
177 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.