Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Akram v. Kao

District of ColumbiaPaul L. FriedmanDecided September 30, 2025No. 1:24-cv-02502

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
Plaintiff alleges that a consular officer interviewed plaintiff, refused his visa application pursuant to Section 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g), and placed his application in “administrative processing.”
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal) Read by a model
Plaintiff alleges that a consular officer interviewed plaintiff, refused his visa application pursuant to Section 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g), and placed his application in “administrative processing.”
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Plaintiff now challenges defendants’ failure to finally adjudicate plaintiff’s visa application within a reasonable time
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
ORDERED that defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 6] is GRANTED
Motion decided Other motion to dismiss Read by a model
ORDERED that defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 6] is GRANTED;
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On November 4, 2024, defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Complaint for Injunctive Relief
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
ORDERED that plaintiff’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Complaint for Injunctive Relief [Dkt. No. 1] is DISMISSED;
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
ORDERED that defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 6] is GRANTED;
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
plaintiff’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Complaint for Injunctive Relief [Dkt. No. 1] is DISMISSED
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-02502
Filed
August 30, 2024
Ended
September 30, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
396 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2025-09-30 dismisses for want of jurisdiction; 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.