Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

MAI TAHOUN v. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

District of ColumbiaTimothy J. KellyDecided May 13, 2025No. 1:21-cv-01658

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
Under the Proclamation, “the State Department declined to issue diversity visas,” arguing that a bar on a non-citizen’s entry similarly barred granting him or her a visa.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Second, they seek writs of mandamus “directing that [Defendants] adjudicate Plaintiffs’ diversity immigrant visa applications before 30 September 2021.”
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Second, they seek writs of mandamus “directing that [Defendants] adjudicate Plaintiffs’ diversity immigrant visa applications before 30 September 2021.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Thus, it will grant Defendants’ motion and dismiss the case.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
In September 2021, Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
In September 2021, Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For all the above reasons, the Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims. Thus, it will grant Defendants’ motion and dismiss the case.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Thus, it will grant Defendants’ motion and dismiss the case.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
For these reasons, Plaintiffs’ claims for equitable and mandamus relief compelling Defendants to process or adjudicate Plaintiffs’ visa applications—regardless of the count in which they are brought—are moot.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
For all the above reasons, the Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims. Thus, it will grant Defendants’ motion and dismiss the case.
Months pending Not stated at filing 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
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
For these reasons, Plaintiffs’ claims for equitable and mandamus relief compelling Defendants to process or adjudicate Plaintiffs’ visa applications—regardless of the count in which they are brought—are moot.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:21-cv-01658
Filed
June 19, 2021
Ended
May 13, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
1,424 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2025-05-13 for the defendants, ground not stated; idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why.

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.