Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Ahmadi v. Scharpf

District of ColumbiaDabney L. FriedrichDecided February 12, 2024No. 1:23-cv-00953

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
In May 2022, they “appeared for a visa interview at the U.S. Consulate General in Frankfurt,” and “[a]fter the interview, the [consular] officer informed [Ahmadi] that these visa applications were being placed in so- called ‘administrative processing.’”
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
In April 2022, Ahmadi applied for a nonimmigrant J-1 visa, and his wife and son applied for “derivative visa[s].”
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
As relief, Ahmadi requests, among other things, an order “[m]andating that Defendants process Plaintiff and his family’s cases within fifteen (15) calendar days of this order or as soon as reasonably possible.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 6.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
B efore the Court is the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 6.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant the motion and dismiss the Petition under Rule 12(b)(6).
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant the motion and dismiss the Petition under Rule 12(b)(6).
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant the motion and dismiss the Petition under Rule 12(b)(6).
Months pending 11.7 months from the application to the suit; 21.9 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
In April 2022, Ahmadi applied for a nonimmigrant J-1 visa, and his wife and son applied for “derivative visa[s].”
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
Factors one and two favor the defendants.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Consular “processing capacity is presently a zero-sum game,” so granting Ahmadi relief “would necessarily mean additional delays for other applicants—many of whom undoubtedly face hardships of their own.”
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected Read by a model
The Court also rejects the defendants’ contention that the doctrine of consular nonreviewability bars Ahmadi’s suit.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Mostafa Ahmadi is an Iranian citizen

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-00953
Filed
April 6, 2023
Ended
February 12, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
312 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.