Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Colorado

Jajermi v. Blinken

District of ColoradoSusan ProseDecided September 24, 2025No. 1:24-cv-02471

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
At an unspecified date before May 2023, Plaintiff-Son submitted a “DS-260” application for an immigrant visa to the State Department.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
the immigrant-visa applications (DS-260 applications)
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
an order compelling Defendants to complete any outstanding “administrative processing” and to render a final decision—i.e., to issue or refuse—on each of the three DS-260 immigrant-visa applications
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint (ECF No. 11) is GRANTED;
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint (ECF No. 11) is GRANTED;
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Because Plaintiffs have failed to establish standing, their claims must be dismissed without prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Because Plaintiffs have failed to establish standing, their claims must be dismissed without prejudice.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Because Plaintiffs have failed to establish standing, their claims must be dismissed without prejudice.
Months pending 13.5 months from the application to the suit; 26.1 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On July 24, 2023, Plaintiff-Son and his wife and son appeared for in-person immigrantvisa interviews at the U.S. Embassy in Yerevan, Armenia.
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
In short, the INA and its implementing regulations do not impose a nondiscretionary duty to complete administrative processing after a § 221(g) refusal.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Plaintiff-Son, Hassan Farzaneh Jajarmi, is a citizen of Iran seeking to immigrate to the United States.
I-130 category Family preference Read by a model
USCIS approved the petition on September 26, 2008, classifying Plaintiff-Son in the F3 (married son of a U.S. citizen) family-preference category.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-02471
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 24)
Filed
September 6, 2024
Ended
September 24, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
383 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2025-09-24 dismisses for want of jurisdiction; idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why. Other suits in this court.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

Supreme Court and Tenth 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.