Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

KHODABAKHSHIAN v. RUBIO

District of ColumbiaMatthew J. SharbaughDecided August 7, 2026No. 1:25-cv-01981

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,996 written decisions from 2,731 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided November 12, 2026. Updated November 14, 2026 at 1:17 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 1,617 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,406 (87%), 1,039 of them in this group, measured November 14, 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
About a month into the application process, in April 2024, she attended a consular interview abroad, during which she was advised that her application required further “administrative processing” and was thus “refused” under INA section 221(g), 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g).
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
In March 2024, she began the process of applying for an H-1B nonimmigrant visa that would allow her to travel to the United States to work as a postdoctoral scholar at a research institute affiliated with the University of California, Los Angeles.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
but she still awaits a final determination on her visa application beyond the original Section 221(g) refusal.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion and DISMISSES the case.
Motion decided Other motion to dismiss Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings (ECF No. 15)
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Now, Defendants seek judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) based on the alternative argument that the delay Khodabakhshian complains about is not unreasonable as a matter of law.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion and DISMISSES the case.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion and DISMISSES the case.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion and DISMISSES the case.
Months pending 14 months from the application to the suit; 28.7 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
In March 2024, she began the process of applying for an H-1B nonimmigrant visa
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
So, the first factor— one of the “most important” factors, Da Costa, 80 F.4th at 340—easily favors Defendants.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
The Court agrees with Defendants that this factor also tilts in their favor. If the Court grants Khodabakhshian the relief she seeks, her application would suddenly be prioritized over so many other visa applicants who likewise await action on their visa applications.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Armenia Read by a model
Khodabakhshian is a dual citizen of Armenia and Iran

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision, this one. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
KHODABAKHSHIAN v. RUBIO November 10, 2025 Matthew J. Sharbaugh Not recorded
KHODABAKHSHIAN v. RUBIOThis decisionThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted August 7, 2026 Matthew J. Sharbaugh Dismissed

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-01981
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 27)
Filed
June 25, 2025
Ended
August 10, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
411 days
How it ended
Ended, outcome not recorded
From the record
terminated; no disposition recorded

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why. Other suits in this court.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.