Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Aramnahad v. Blinken

District of ColumbiaMoxila A. UpadhyayaDecided December 22, 2025No. 1:24-cv-01817

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 June 12, 2025, approximately one week after the Presidential Proclamation, a consular officer refused Plaintiffs’ visa application under section 212(f) of the INA (the “212(f) Refusal”), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f).
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiffs Mohammad Aramnahad and his wife Meili Li (collectively “Plaintiffs”) seek declaratory, injunctive, and mandamus relief to compel the United States Government (“Defendants” or “the Government”) to adjudicate their immigrant visa application.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
On June 24, 2024, Plaintiffs filed this Complaint to compel the Government to adjudicate their visa application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Government’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 29) is GRANTED.
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Government’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 29) is GRANTED.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The Government moves for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 on all of Plaintiffs’ claims.
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
Because there is no further remedy this Court can grant to Plaintiffs based on the claims in their Complaint, all counts of Plaintiffs’ claims are moot.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
Because there is no further remedy this Court can grant to Plaintiffs based on the claims in their Complaint, all counts of Plaintiffs’ claims are moot.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Because there is no further remedy this Court can grant to Plaintiffs based on the claims in their Complaint, all counts of Plaintiffs’ claims are moot.
Months pending 14.9 months from the application to the suit; 26.4 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
On June 12, 2025, approximately one week after the Presidential Proclamation, a consular officer refused Plaintiffs’ visa application under section 212(f) of the INA
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability applied; Held moot Read by a model
Even assuming Count I was not moot, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on that claim based on the doctrine of consular nonreviewability.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Aramnahad is an Iranian national, and his wife Li is a Chinese national.
212(f) proclamation Proclamation 10949 Read by a model
President Donald J. Trump issued Proclamation No. 10,949 (“the Presidential Proclamation”), in which he ordered the “full suspension of entry of nationals” from certain countries of “Identified Concern,” including Iran.

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision, this one. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
ARAMNAHAD v. BLINKEN March 31, 2025 Moxila A. Upadhyaya Denied in the applicant's favor
Aramnahad v. BlinkenThis decisionThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted December 22, 2025 Moxila A. Upadhyaya Dismissed as moot

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-01817
Filed
June 24, 2024
Ended
December 23, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
547 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant

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.