Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Akhtar v. Blinken

District of ColumbiaAmit P. MehtaDecided September 23, 2025No. 1:24-cv-02665

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
Also, the last pre-complaint communication that Plaintiff received from the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad, through the office of Congressman Mike Thompson, in mid-July 2024 makes no mention of a refusal.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
Pro se Plaintiff Muhammad Shoaib Akhtar has applied to renew his J-1 visa and his wife’s J-2 visa.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
He asks the court to issue a writ of mandamus compelling Defendants to adjudicate the applications within 30 days.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For that reason, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied.
Motion decided Other motion to dismiss Read by a model
For that reason, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss on two grounds.
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
For that reason, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
For that reason, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
For that reason, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied.
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
Both arguments turn on the fact assertion that the renewal applications have been “refused.” Defendants cite to page five of the complaint and Exhibits 5 and 6 thereto for that proposition. See id. at 2. But neither citation establishes a refusal.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-02665
Filed
August 27, 2024
Ended
May 26, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
637 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.

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.