Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Illinois

Zadeh v. Blinken

Northern District of IllinoisSteven C. SeegerDecided May 20, 2024No. 1:23-cv-03721

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,996 written decisions from 2,731 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided November 12, 2026. Updated November 14, 2026 at 1:17 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 1,617 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,406 (87%), 1,039 of them in this group, measured November 14, 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
Zadeh and Yarahmadi do not allege that the State Department sat on its hands and refused to review Yarahmadi’s K-1 visa application, while allowing other couples to jump the line.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
Zadeh and Yarahmadi immediately paid the applicable processing fees and timely submitted the DS-160 application, along with supporting documentation.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Counts III and IV request that the Court compel Defendants to act on Yarahmadi’s application, under 5 U.S.C. § 706(1).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Months pending 3.9 months from the application to the suit; 15.1 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Here, Yarahmadi had his interview in February 2023.
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
In sum, both the first and second TRAC factors tip the scale in Defendants’ favor.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Courts – including this Court – have generally held that first-in, first-out satisfies the rule of reason.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Mootness argument rejected Read by a model
Therefore, the doctrine of consular nonreviewability does not apply. The Court declines to dismiss the complaint on this ground.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Yarahmadi is a national of Iran.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-03721
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 22)
Filed
June 13, 2023
Ended
May 24, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
346 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 17 (judgment: other), 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.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

Supreme Court and Seventh 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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.