Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Rashidi v. United States Department of State

District of ColumbiaJames E. BoasbergDecided October 4, 2023No. 1:23-cv-01569

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
Such an order would necessarily require State to prioritize Plaintiffs’ applications “at the expense of other similarly situated applicants.”
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiffs are Iranian nationals who applied for non-immigrant visas to attend postgraduate programs at various U.S. academic institutions this fall.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Plaintiffs seek an order requiring the Government to “render a decision on [their] J-1, F-1, and F-2 visa applications without further delay.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and deny Plaintiffs’ Motion for Discovery.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion invokes the legal standards for dismissal under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and deny Plaintiffs’ Motion for Discovery.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
In short, because Plaintiffs failed to adequately plead that a final decision on their visa applications has been unreasonably delayed, their Complaint shall be dismissed.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and deny Plaintiffs’ Motion for Discovery.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
In short, because Plaintiffs failed to adequately plead that a final decision on their visa applications has been unreasonably delayed, their Complaint shall be dismissed.
Months pending 6.3 months from the application to the suit The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
He interviewed on November 22, 2022, but never received a final decision.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 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
The first two factors clearly favor Defendants.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
As to factor four, one need not unearth the details of the visa-adjudication process at Yerevan and elsewhere to surmise that the relief Plaintiffs seek would reorder State’s priorities.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Held moot; Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found Read by a model
So as not to spill unnecessary ink, the Court here adopts its analysis from that Opinion. Id. at *3–5. All three of those arguments founder for the reasons stated in Khazaei.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Plaintiffs are Iranian nationals

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-01569
Filed
June 1, 2023
Ended
October 4, 2023
Suit's filing to its end
125 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.