Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Illinois

Castillo v. Rubio

Northern District of IllinoisSharon Johnson ColemanDecided October 14, 2026No. 1:26-cv-11422

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
Plaintiffs ask the Court to compel the State Department to conduct one interview and process a single visa application.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
The U.S. Embassy in San Salvador requires two visits: one for a “Document Review” and one for the “actual visa interview.” Dkt. 1-11, U.S. Embassy in El Salvador, “Important Update: Immigrant Visa Interview Appointment,”
What the suit asked for Schedule an interview Read by a model
(2) requiring the U.S. Embassy in El Salvador to interview him within seven days
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order [2] and, following any hearing the Court may set, a preliminary injunction.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order [2] and, following any hearing the Court may set, a preliminary injunction.
Disposition Granted in the applicant's favor The principal motion was granted in full: summary judgment for either side, an injunction or TRO, a writ or order to act, fees. A motion to dismiss granted in full counts as Dismissed; a transfer is listed apart. Read by a model
For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion.
The delay claim Relief ordered Read by a model
the Court issues a preliminary injunction directing the State Department to schedule a visa interview for Mr. Rivera Castillo at the U.S. Embassy in El Salvador within seven (7) days
The other claims Relief denied Read by a model
In sum, the Court finds that the Pause falls within the State Department’s statutory authority, and that the Pause is not “final agency action” such that judicial review is available.
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 rejected Read by a model
Again, Mr. Rivera Castillo was already at the top of the “proverbial pile,” and his case was unimpacted by CLINIC.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality El Salvador Read by a model
Mr. Rivera Castillo is a citizen of El Salvador.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
He married Ms. Rivera, a U.S. citizen, in 2013.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:26-cv-11422
Filed
September 18, 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 Seventh 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.