Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

YAGHOUBNEZHAD v. STUFFT

District of ColumbiaTrevor N. McFaddenDecided May 9, 2024No. 1:23-cv-03094

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
They allege that State has “unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed” a final determination on their visa applications in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) .
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiffs all completed Form DS -160 and were interviewed in-person by consular officers.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
By arguing that State must complete administrative processing and issue a “final” refusal, Plaintiffs ask the Court to impose a duty that has no basis in the INA or its implementing regulations.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
And the Court will grant it because Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
State argues that dismissal is proper under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). So two standards apply.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
State moved 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
And the Court will grant it because Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For these reasons, State ’sMotion to Dismiss will be granted.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For these reasons, State ’sMotion to Dismiss will be granted.
Months pending 16 months from the application to the suit; 22.8 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiffs are 16 Iranian nationals who applied for nonimmigrant F or J visas between June and December 2022.
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
At most, these factors weigh slightly in support of Plaintiffs.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
But Plaintiffs ’ circumstances are not unique enough to warrant ordering the Secretary to expedite processing at the expense of other applicants who also seek educational and work opportunities.
Threshold rulings No duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal Read by a model
While State may elect to submit those applications to additional review, it has no duty to take any action beyond the action it already took—refusing Plaintiffs’ visas under § 221(g).
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Plaintiffs are 16 Iranian nationals

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-03094
Filed
October 16, 2023
Ended
May 9, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
206 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
voluntary dismissal 2024-05-06; 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.

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.