Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

FETANAT v. BLINKEN

District of ColumbiaAmir H. AliDecided September 15, 2025No. 1:24-cv-02298

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,917 written decisions from 2,664 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 7:07 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
And Fetanat attaches correspondence in which the embassy confirms that the purpose of administrative processing remains “to verify [his] qualifications for the visa.”
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
Fetanat applied for a B-1/B-2 nonimmigrant visa to meet with investors and stakeholders, and to “secure crucial funding.”
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Fetanat brings this action under the APA and the Mandamus Act to compel the government to decide his visa application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For these reasons, the defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 6, is denied.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
The defendants move to dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The defendants move to dismiss the complaint
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 these reasons, the defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 6, is denied.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
The Court disagrees with both bases for dismissal and accordingly denies the motion to dismiss.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
For these reasons, the defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 6, is denied.
Months pending 29 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
After an interview in April 2023, the consular officer told Fetanat a visa would not be issued at that time and referred his application for additional administrative processing.
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
B. The Doctrine of Consular Nonreviewability Does Not Apply
Nationality Iran Read by a model
According to the complaint, Fetanat is a permanent resident of Canada and national of Iran.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-02298
Filed
August 6, 2024
Ended
July 9, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
702 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
voluntary dismissal 2026-07-08

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.