Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Illinois

Arif v. Blinken

Northern District of IllinoisSunil R. HarjaniDecided July 7, 2025No. 1:24-cv-11971

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
The Court cannot compel the Secretary of DHS to adjudicate Mr. Mumtaz’s visa application because the adjudication is now in the hands of the Department of State and the Consulate General.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
In scheduling that interview, the consular officer said they needed more information “to continue processing [Mr. Mumtaz’s] U.S. immigrant visa application.”
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Plaintiffs request a writ of mandamus to “expedite the administrative processing and immediately render a final decision” on Mr. Mumtaz’s visa application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss [15][16] is granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to 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 stated below, Defendants’ motion to dismiss [15][16] is granted for failure to state a claim.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss [15][16] is granted.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Weighing all the factors together, the Court does not find that the current delay is unreasonable. Thus, the APA claim is dismissed.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
This Court similarly does not find a liberty interest implicated here, and the due process claim is dismissed.
Months pending 13.8 months from the application to the suit; 21.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Once completed, the State Department’s Visa Center scheduled Ms. Arif and Mr. Mumtaz for a visa interview at the United States Consulate General in Montreal on September 22, 2023.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablenot reached
  • 3. Human health and welfarenot reached
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
Here, Plaintiffs do not allege that the government failed to apply a rule of reason
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Here, Plaintiffs do not allege that the government failed to apply a rule of reason
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Mootness argument rejected; Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found; APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
Because Mr. Mumtaz awaits a final decision on his application, the Court finds that consular nonreviewability does not apply.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Plaintiffs Zardar Arif, a United States citizen, and his mother, Saadia Arif, a lawful United States permanent resident and Canadian citizen, filed an action on behalf of Arif Mumtaz, Mr. Arif’s father and Ms. Arif’s spouse.

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
Arif v. BlinkenThis decision July 7, 2025 Sunil R. Harjani Dismissed
Arif v. RubioThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted July 7, 2025 Sunil R. Harjani Dismissed

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-11971
Filed
November 20, 2024
Ended
July 7, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
229 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 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.