Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Faizi v. Garland

District of ColumbiaRudolph ContrerasDecided December 11, 2024No. 1:24-cv-00839

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
Almost two years later, the Department of State denied Plaintiff’s request because it “lack[ed] sufficient documents to make a determination.”
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiff has for several years sought COM approval for a Special Immigrant VISA (“SIV”) under the AAPA.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
to adjudicate his visa application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Other motion to dismiss Read by a model
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Plaintiff opposes Defendants’ first-to-file argument but does not dispute their Rule 12(b)(1) argument.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint under the first-to-file rule
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
the Court grants Defendants’ motion to stay, grants their motion to dismiss in part with respect to dismissing defendants Garland and Wray, and denies their motion to dismiss in part on all other grounds.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
the Court grants Defendants’ motion to stay, grants their motion to dismiss in part with respect to dismissing defendants Garland and Wray, and denies their motion to dismiss in part on all other grounds.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
the Court grants Defendants’ motion to stay, grants their motion to dismiss in part with respect to dismissing defendants Garland and Wray, and denies their motion to dismiss in part on all other grounds.
The other claims The delay claim goes on Read by a model
the Court grants Defendants’ motion to stay, grants their motion to dismiss in part with respect to dismissing defendants Garland and Wray, and denies their motion to dismiss in part on all other grounds.
Months pending 40.1 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
He first applied on August 8, 2021, basing his eligibility on his employment as a driver for the U.S. State Department at the Justice Center in Parwan, Afghanistan.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Afghanistan Read by a model
Hashmatullah Faizi (“Plaintiff”), an Afghan citizen proceeding pro se

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-00839
Filed
March 22, 2024
Ended
December 11, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
264 days
How it ended
Ended, outcome not recorded
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for both

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.