Mandamus decisions / District of Maryland

Aghamohammadi v. Blinken

District of MarylandDeborah K. ChasanowDecided September 19, 2025No. 8:24-cv-02801

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 November 2, 2023, Plaintiffs Mokhtar and Batool were interviewed together by a consular officer at the U.S. Embassy in Yerevan, Armenia.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
This case concerns a particular type of visa, the immediate-relative immigrant visa.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
In Count Two, Plaintiffs seek an order compelling Defendants to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ visa applications under the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C § 1361.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, (ECF No. 9), will be granted
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, (ECF No. 9), will be granted; and Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, (Id.), will be denied as moot.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, (ECF No. 9), will be granted
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, (ECF No. 9), will be granted;
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Defendants are correct that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over both counts in Plaintiffs’ complaint.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, (ECF No. 9), will be granted
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ unlawful withholding claims under § 706(1) and § 706(2) are thus dismissed.
Months pending 10.9 months from the application to the suit; 22.6 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On November 2, 2023, Plaintiffs Mokhtar and Batool were interviewed together by a consular officer at the U.S. Embassy in Yerevan, Armenia.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonnot reached
  • 2. Congressional timetablenot reached
  • 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
factors three and five would favor Plaintiffs
Threshold rulings No duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal; APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
But § 42.81(a) mandates nothing after the consular officer initially refuses a visa under 221(g).
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Plaintiffs are Mahdi Aghamohammadi, a United States Citizen, and his parents, Mokhtar Aghamohammadi and Batool Panji, who are Iranian nationals.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Plaintiffs are Mahdi Aghamohammadi, a United States Citizen, and his parents, Mokhtar Aghamohammadi and Batool Panji, who are Iranian nationals.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 8:24-cv-02801
Filed
September 30, 2024
Ended
September 19, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
354 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 3 (dismissed: lack of jurisdiction)

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 Fourth 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.