Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

ALRUBAI v. RAINES

District of ColumbiaTanya S. ChutkanDecided July 10, 2026No. 1:25-cv-02741

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
On February 27, 2025, consular officials informed Plaintiff that his visa application remained “refused under Section 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act until the required administrative processing is complete” and asked him to submit additional information and documentation.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiff is a citizen of the United Kingdom residing in the United Arab Emirates who filed a B-1/B-2 visa application on January 10, 2025.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Plaintiff counters that a Section 221(g) refusal followed by administrative processing is not “final,” thus the agency has not discharged its duty to timely adjudicate his visa.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the court will GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the court will GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the reasons set forth below, the court will GRANT Defendants’ Motion and dismiss this action.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the court will GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the reasons set forth below, the court will GRANT Defendants’ Motion and dismiss this action.
Months pending 7.1 months from the application to the suit; 17.9 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
who filed a B-1/B-2 visa application on January 10, 2025
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings No duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal Read by a model
But as the D.C. Circuit has explained, even if a consular officer places an executed application into administrative processing after refusing it, the officer has still issued a formal and official refusal that discharges any duty to act.
Nationality United Kingdom Read by a model
Plaintiff is a citizen of the United Kingdom

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-02741
Filed
August 19, 2025
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.