Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

CHENG v. BLINKEN

District of ColumbiaJohn D. BatesDecided September 30, 2024No. 1:23-cv-02602

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
Plaintiffs next allege that the State Department has not permitted them to file visa applications.
Form or filing I-140 (immigrant worker petition) Read by a model
plaintiffs filed the present complaint asserting that USCIS and the State Department have unreasonably delayed action on their Form I-140 petitions and visa applications
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
the State Department has unreasonably delayed the processing of their visa applications by not notifying plaintiffs that they are eligible to file the documentation and pay the application fee required to continue the creation and processing of their applications.
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 and dismiss this case.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
The government moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is the government’s motion to dismiss the complaint.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismiss this case.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismiss this case.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismiss this case.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
the Court will dismiss Count II for failure to state a claim.
Months pending Not stated at filing The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
the delays at present are ten and eleven months, respectively.
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
Factors one and two, therefore, favor dismissal.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Here, granting plaintiffs’ relief would push their petitions and applications to the front of the queue and create these same line-jumping concerns that judges in this District repeatedly admonish.
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Because events occurred during the pendency of the case “that make[] it impossible for the court to grant ‘any effectual relief’” to plaintiffs on these claims, the Court agrees that the claims are moot.
Nationality China Read by a model
Jian Yi Cheng is a citizen, national, and resident of the People’s Republic of China

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-02602
Filed
September 7, 2023
Ended
September 30, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
389 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant

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.