Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

UGRENYUK v. RUBIO

District of ColumbiaAmit Priyavadan MehtaDecided September 22, 2026No. 1:26-cv-03181

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 request an emergency order compelling Defendants to act on their visa applications before the statutory deadline of September 30, 2026, after the State Department scheduled but then cancelled their interviews.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Pro se Plaintiffs Karolina Ugrenyuk and Vincent Knight are diversity visas selectees for the 2026 fiscal year.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Plaintiffs have now received their interviews but, because their applications remain in administrative processing, they still seek to compel their final adjudication.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
sua sponte dismisses this action without prejudice.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
Accordingly, the court denies Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 2, as well as Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for Expedited Relief, ECF No. 11, and sua sponte dismisses this action without prejudice.
Whose motion The court on its own Read by a model
sua sponte dismisses this action without prejudice.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
and sua sponte dismisses this action without prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
and sua sponte dismisses this action without prejudice.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
sua sponte dismisses this action without prejudice.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
If the court were to grant the relief Plaintiffs seek—compelling final adjudication of their applications—it would move them ahead of other Medani class members. Such an outcome is at odds with the purpose of class-wide relief.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:26-cv-03181
Filed
September 10, 2026
Status
Pending as of the last docket check

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.