Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Deylami v. Kvien

District of ColumbiaTanya S. ChutkanDecided January 16, 2025No. 1:23-cv-01393

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
The consular officer’s decision to place Shirazi’s application in administrative processing was a form of visa “refusal.”
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
According to the Complaint, Plaintiff Shirazi appeared for his F-1 visa interview on December 10, 2021, at the U.S. Embassy in Yerevan, Armenia.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Shirazi does not seek to compel a particular decision on his application, only to compel that the administrative processing be completed on a certain timeline.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For these reasons, the court will GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 7, 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
Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (12)(b)(6), citing six grounds:
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
For these reasons, the court will GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 7, and DISMISS the Complaint.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For these reasons, the court will GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 7, and DISMISS the Complaint.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For these reasons, the court will GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 7, and DISMISS the Complaint.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For these reasons, the court will GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 7, and DISMISS the Complaint.
Months pending 37.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
According to the Complaint, Plaintiff Shirazi appeared for his F-1 visa interview on December 10, 2021, 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
Because Plaintiff has not identified a duty for Defendants to further adjudicate his refused visa applications, he has no basis on which to claim that that action has been unreasonably delayed.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Plaintiffs, a group of Iranian nationals, sued to compel agency action on their student visa applications.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-01393
Filed
May 17, 2023
Ended
January 16, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
610 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
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.