Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Thomas v. Pompeo

District of ColumbiaEllen S. HuvelleDecided February 7, 2020No. 1:19-cv-01050

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
The same day, the Embassy emailed Mr. Masoumi a questionnaire seeking information “such as 15 years of travel, address, and employment history; the names and dates of birth of his siblings; and his social media account handles”—Mr. Masoumi completed and returned the survey later that day.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
adjudicate Plaintiffs’ petition for a fiancé(e) visa without further delay
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
to compel them to complete administrative processing and adjudicate Mr. Masoumi’s visa application, which was filed over three years ago.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
As a result, the Court denies defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that it has jurisdiction to hear this case, and that plaintiffs have stated a claim under the APA. As a result, the Court denies defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Disposition Denied in the applicant's favor The principal motion was denied in full: a motion to dismiss denied so the case goes on, or relief denied on the merits. Read by a model
As a result, the Court denies defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
As a result, the Court denies defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
As a result, the Court denies defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Months pending 19.9 months from the application to the suit; 29.7 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Mr. Masoumi attended an interview at the United States Embassy in Abu Dhabi on August 16, 2017.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Mootness argument rejected Read by a model
The doctrine of consular nonreviewability thus fails to strip the Court of jurisdiction in this case.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Mr. Masoumi, an Iranian citizen.
212(f) proclamation Proclamation 9645 Read by a model
Mr. Masoumi’s case is undergoing administrative processing in order to qualify for a waiver under Presidential Proclamation 9645.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:19-cv-01050
Filed
April 14, 2019
Ended
June 22, 2020
Suit's filing to its end
435 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
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.