Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

DIAKANUA v. BLINKEN

District of ColumbiaTimothy J. KellyDecided March 31, 2025No. 1:24-cv-01027

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
They allege that Defendant, the U.S. Secretary of State, has unreasonably delayed resolving Muila’s visa application.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Defendant further represents that “[t]he consular officer adjudicated Mr. Muila’s visa application at the conclusion of the interview and refused the application under section 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g).”
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
the Court may still grant Plaintiffs effectual relief by, for example, ordering Defendant to speed up his administrative processing of Muila’s application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the Court will grant Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and deny Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(n).
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
For all the above reasons, the Court will grant Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and deny Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(n).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
the Court will grant Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
the Court will grant Defendant’s motion and dismiss the case.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
the Court will grant Defendant’s motion and dismiss the case.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The Court Will Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Unreasonable-Delay Claims
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
they lack standing to challenge that failure.9 Thus, the Court will dismiss Count III.10
Months pending 20 months from the application to the suit 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
Muila paid the required filing fees and filed all the relevant forms and “supporting documents” on August 15, 2022.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfareneutral
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedneutral
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
So the first and second TRAC factors, taken together, weigh in Defendant’s favor.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
And “visa interviews are scheduled in the order in which the cases become ‘documentarily complete,’ a methodology that courts in this District have consistently found is a ‘rule of reason,’ satisfying the first TRAC factor.”
Threshold rulings Held moot; Mootness argument rejected Read by a model
Even if Plaintiffs had alleged standing, the Court would still dismiss Count III as moot after considering that Muila has now been interviewed and that his application has been placed in administrative processing.
Nationality Congo Read by a model
Diakanua is an LPR seeking an FP visa for her husband, Muila, a national of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
I-130 category Family preference Read by a model
Diakanua is an LPR seeking an FP visa for her husband, Muila, a national of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-01027
Filed
April 10, 2024
Ended
March 31, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
355 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2025-03-31 for the defendants, ground not stated; idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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.