Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Voghouei v. Secretary, Department of Homeland Security

District of ColumbiaDecided May 15, 2026No. 1:25-cv-01893

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
One week after the issuance of the Proclamation, a consular officer determined that Javanmardi and Khani, who are Iranian nationals, were ineligible for immigrant visas pursuant to INA Section 212(f), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f).
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
The plaintiffs are six foreign nationals who are either primary or derivative applicants for immigrant visas.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Rather, they allege that the “refusals” under Section 221(g) and subsequent placement into “administrative processing” were not “final adjudications” such that the government has unreasonably delayed deciding their visa applications.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Upon careful consideration of the parties’ written submissions and the relevant authorities, the Court will grant the government’s motion and dismiss the complaint.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
On January 14, 2026, the government filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to 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
On January 14, 2026, the government filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to 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
Upon careful consideration of the parties’ written submissions and the relevant authorities, the Court will grant the government’s motion and dismiss the complaint.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Upon careful consideration of the parties’ written submissions and the relevant authorities, the Court will grant the government’s motion and dismiss the complaint.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Upon careful consideration of the parties’ written submissions and the relevant authorities, the Court will grant the government’s motion and dismiss the complaint.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Upon careful consideration of the parties’ written submissions and the relevant authorities, the Court will grant the government’s motion and dismiss the complaint.
Months pending 17.9 months from the application to the suit The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
Sabetamal and Ehyaei executed their visa applications during an interview with a consular officer in Sydney, Australia, on May 30, 2023.
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 needednot reached
Read by a model
The Court therefore determines that the first two TRAC factors weigh in the government’s favor.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
But “[i]t would be improper for the [C]ourt to intervene and expedite [the] [p]laintiffs’ visa applications at the expense of others.” Majlesi v. Rubio, 2026 WL 654377, at *9. This factor thus strongly favors the government’s position.
Threshold rulings Held moot; No duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal Read by a model
The Court therefore will dismiss as moot the claims brought by plaintiffs Javanmardi and Khani.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Plaintiff Hassan Sabetamal is a dual national of Iran and Australia and the primary applicant for an immigrant visa.
212(f) proclamation Proclamation 10949 Read by a model
One week after the issuance of the Proclamation, a consular officer determined that Javanmardi and Khani, who are Iranian nationals, were ineligible for immigrant visas pursuant to INA Section 212(f), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f).

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-01893
Filed
June 17, 2025
Ended
May 18, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
335 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.