Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

MOSHTAGH DEZFOULI v. FLAKE

District of ColumbiaJia M. CobbDecided May 29, 2026No. 1:23-cv-01834

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
They also allege that the State Department’s visa process is currently operating on an “indefinite timetable” that is delaying “final decision[s]” on their applications.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiffs are citizens of Iran who have applied for nonimmigrant F-1, F-2, J-1, or J-2 visas, seeking temporary admission to the United States.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Plaintiffs can also bring this suit to compel a final decision on their applications that are stuck in administrative processing because issuing decisions on the pending visa applications is a discrete agency action required by law.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, ECF 6, is GRANTED, and as a result Plaintiffs’ complaint is DISMISSED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to state claims for unreasonable delay and for arbitrary and capricious action, and grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants have moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims on various grounds.
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 failure to state a claim, ECF 6, is GRANTED, and as a result Plaintiffs’ complaint is DISMISSED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, ECF 6, is GRANTED, and as a result Plaintiffs’ complaint is DISMISSED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Ultimately, the Court agrees with Defendants that Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged that Defendants’ delay warrants judicial intervention and will dismiss this claim.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to state claims for unreasonable delay and for arbitrary and capricious action, and grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
Months pending 51.7 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiffs attended consular interviews between February 4, 2022, and January 4, 2023.
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 prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicednot reached
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
As such, these factors weigh in favor of Defendants.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
“[T]he fact that others were interviewed after but adjudicated before [an applicant] does not, without other information, mean that Defendants are not adhering to the first-in, first-out rule, as different applications may require different time and attention.”
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found Read by a model
The consular nonreviewability doctrine does not apply here because Plaintiffs’ claims are based on Defendants’ failure to render a decision on their applications.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Plaintiffs are citizens of Iran

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-01834
Filed
June 23, 2023
Ended
May 29, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
1,071 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 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.