Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

SILVA v. RUBIO

District of ColumbiaReggie B. WaltonDecided August 10, 2026No. 1:25-cv-02389

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
[his] inquiries have resulted in continuous responses from the U.S. Embassy in Sao Paulo, Brazil, stating that [his] Application is undergoing administrative processing and without any indication as to when the adjudicative process will be completed[,]
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
informed [the p]laintiff that his case was being ‘refused’ under administrative processing for the purpose of ‘verify[ing] the applicant’s qualification for this visa.’
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
he asks that the Court compel the defendants to “perform their duty to adjudicate [his] [n]onimmigrant visa [a]pplication immediately.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that it must grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Currently pending before the Court is the defendants’ motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Currently pending before the Court is the defendants’ motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that it must grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that it must grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that it must grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Months pending 7.3 months from the application to the suit; 19.8 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
In December 2024, the plaintiff returned to Brazil to renew his H-1B “by submitting his Application with the U.S. Embassy in Sao Paulo, Brazil, and requesting the issuance of the corresponding H-1B visa stamp.”
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 government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety neededfavors the government
Read by a model
In other words, the first two factors, considered together, favor the defendants.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
would ‘impose offsetting burdens on equally worthy’ applicants by effectively putting [him] ‘at the head of the queue,’ thereby ‘mov[ing] all others back one space and produc[ing] no net gain[.]’
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Brazil Read by a model
The plaintiff is a citizen of Brazil

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-02389
Filed
July 24, 2025
Ended
August 11, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
383 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2026-08-10 for the defendants, ground not stated

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.