Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

HEMMAT v. BLINKEN

District of ColumbiaTanya S. ChutkanDecided September 17, 2024No. 1:23-cv-02085

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
Similarly, to the extent that the State Department’s collection of fees under 22 C.F.R. § 41.107 creates a duty to complete the corresponding service, the consular officer did so by issuing the refusal decision.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiffs Aliasghar Hemmat and his spouse Afsar Assadiazarbayjani are Iranian nationals seeking to enter the United States on immigrant visas.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Following the interview, the application was “refused” and “Plaintiffs were informed that their applications were subject to mandatory administrative processing,” including the submission of additional documents.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For these reasons, the court will GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 7.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants have moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants have moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims 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 reasons set forth below, the court will GRANT Defendants’ Motion and dismiss this action.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons set forth below, the court will GRANT Defendants’ Motion and dismiss this action.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For these reasons, the court will GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 7.
Months pending 16.1 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
According to the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff Hemmat’s I-140 was approved in October 2021, and he completed the application and interview process in May 2023.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings No duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal Read by a model
Because refusal concludes the matter presented by a visa application, Section 555(b) does not establish a duty to take the action that Plaintiffs claim has been unreasonably delayed—further adjudicating the refused visa applications.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Plaintiffs Aliasghar Hemmat and his spouse Afsar Assadiazarbayjani are Iranian nationals seeking to enter the United States on immigrant visas.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-02085
Filed
July 18, 2023
Ended
September 17, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
427 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.