Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

SHARMA v. RUBIO

District of ColumbiaTimothy J. KellyDecided July 10, 2026No. 1:25-cv-03368

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
One week later, Sharma received an email from the Consulate “requesting a list of all of his social media accounts,” which Sharma provided.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
In July 2025, the “online case status for Sharma’s DS-160 Application was changed to ‘Approved’” so Sharma returned to the U.S. Consulate to collect his passport. Id. ¶¶ 53–54. But when he arrived, he instead received another § 221(g) refusal.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Navdeep Sharma sues several U.S. Government officials under the Administrative Procedure Act and for mandamus relief, seeking to compel the adjudication of his H1-B visa application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For all the above reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion and dismiss the case.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants now move to dismiss all of Sharma’s claims under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants now move to dismiss all of Sharma’s claims 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 the above reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion and dismiss the case.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For all the above reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion and dismiss the case.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For all the above reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion and dismiss the case.
Months pending 10 months from the application to the suit; 19.8 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
USCIS approved TCS’s H1-B petition in early 2024 and, in November 2024, Sharma submitted his DS-160 application.
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
The first two TRAC factors favor Defendants.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Because Sharma does not plausibly allege facts showing that relief would not come at the expense of similarly situated applicants, this factor still favors Defendants.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality India Read by a model
Sharma, a citizen of India, alleges that he has worked for U.S.-based employer Tata Consultancy Services (“TCS”) since 2021.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-03368
Filed
September 22, 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.