Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

SLUEV v. RUBIO

District of ColumbiaAmit P. MehtaDecided October 22, 2026No. 1:25-cv-00899

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
It ruled that Karimova held only that section 555(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) did not place a “clear, non-discretionary duty” on a consular officer to “re-adjudicate [an] already-refused application,” without holding the same for any other source of law.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
Adjudications of F-1 non-immigrant visas are not a zero-sum game in which Plaintiff’s gain is another applicant’s loss.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
On February 24, 2026, this court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff Timofey Sluev’s petition seeking to compel action on his visa application, which has been in administrative processing since June 26, 2024.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, ECF No. 15, is granted.
Motion decided Other motion to dismiss Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, ECF No. 15, is granted.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants now move for judgment on the pleadings
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
After weighing all the TRAC factors, the court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for unreasonable delay under the APA.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, ECF No. 15, is granted.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
After weighing all the TRAC factors, the court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for unreasonable delay under the APA.
Months pending 28 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Acknowledging the harms from the now 28-month delay and his continuing inability to enter the Dartmouth program, the third and fifth factors weigh modestly in Plaintiff’s favor.
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 factors, “relating to whether Congress has imposed a timeline for the agency action,” are often considered together and, in this case, favor Defendants.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Indeed, whether agency review rigidly proceeds on a “first-in-first-out” basis is not dispositive for whether the adjudication follows a rule of reason.
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
The mandamus claim also is dismissed because the APA provides an adequate remedy at law.

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision, this one. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
SLUEV v. RUBIO February 24, 2026 Amit P. Mehta Denied in the applicant's favor
SLUEV v. RUBIOThis decisionThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted October 22, 2026 Amit P. Mehta Dismissed

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-00899
Filed
March 26, 2025
Ended
March 30, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
369 days
How it ended
Ended, outcome not recorded
From the record
terminated; no disposition recorded

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.