Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Maryland

Jahangiri v. Blinken

District of MarylandDeborah K. ChasanowDecided April 17, 2024No. 8:23-cv-02722

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
Since the interview, the Embassy has not requested any additional documents, and Ms. Amani’s application remains refused pending administrative processing.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiffs paid the visa processing fees and timely submitted the DS-160 Online Nonimmigrant Visa Application along with the supporting documentation to the NVC.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Plaintiffs seek an order compelling Defendants to adjudicate Ms. Amani’s visa application under the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, (ECF No. 14), will be denied, but the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, (id.), will be granted
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, (ECF No. 14), will be denied, but the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, (id.), will be granted
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
the motion for temporary restraining order filed by Plaintiffs Payam Jahangiri and Farnoosh Amani (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), (ECF No. 13), will be denied; Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, (ECF No. 14), will be denied
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, (ECF No. 14), will be denied, but the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, (id.), will be granted
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Because the court will grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs’ motion for temporary restraining order will be denied.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, (ECF No. 14), will be denied, but the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, (id.), will be granted
Months pending 10.7 months from the application to the suit; 17 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On November 17, 2022, Ms. Amani attended her interview at the consular section in the U.S. Embassy in Ankara.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfarenot reached
  • 4. Competing prioritiesnot reached
  • 5. Interests prejudicednot reached
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
A delay of 17 months, however, does not raise the same level of concern as the longer delays in these cases.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
the effect of allowing the plaintiffs to jump the line, functionally solving their delay problem at the expense of other similarly situated applicants.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Mootness argument rejected Read by a model
The doctrine of consular nonreviewability thus does not bar this suit.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Plaintiff Farnoosh Amani (“Ms. Amani”), an Iranian national.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 8:23-cv-02722
Filed
October 9, 2023
Ended
April 17, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
191 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 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.