Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Maryland

Yarmohammadi v. Rubio

District of MarylandBrendan Abell HursonDecided July 21, 2025No. 1:24-cv-02952

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
After each Plaintiff’s‘consular interview, the consular officer issued a non-final 221(g) refusal? and requested additional information via a DS-5535 supplemental form.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
filed a DS-260 (Immigrant Visa Electronic Application) with the National Visa Center (NVC), and had an interview at a United States embassy or consulate abroad.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
mandamus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361 for the willful and unreasonable failure to adjudicate the immigrant visa petitions
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part, Counts one and two are dismissed.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Other motion to dismiss Read by a model
Defendants argue that dismissal is proper under Rules 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, 12(b)(3) for lack of venue, and 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
the Court finds that it has subject matter jurisdiction over the unlawful withholding and unreasonable delay claims and declines to dismiss counts three through six under Rule 12(b)(1).
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
the Court finds that it has subject matter jurisdiction over the unlawful withholding and unreasonable delay claims and declines to dismiss counts three through six under Rule 12(b)(1).
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
the Court finds that it has subject matter jurisdiction over the unlawful withholding and unreasonable delay claims and declines to dismiss counts three through six under Rule 12(b)(1).
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Counts one and two are 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 Consular nonreviewability rejected; Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found Read by a model
The Court again finds that the doctrine of consular nonreviewability does not preclude judicial review and does not warrant dismissal of the withholding and delay claims under Rule 12(b)(6).
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Plaintiffs are Iranian nationals seeking immigrant visas to the United States.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-02952
Filed
October 10, 2024
Ended
January 22, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
104 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
voluntary dismissal 2025-01-22

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 Fourth 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.