Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Massachusetts

Konshina v. Rubio

District of MassachusettsWilliam G. YoungDecided December 22, 2025No. 1:25-cv-10357

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,996 written decisions from 2,731 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided November 12, 2026. Updated November 14, 2026 at 1:17 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 1,617 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,406 (87%), 1,039 of them in this group, measured November 14, 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
As a result of the interview, the consular officer provided a Form 221(g) to Konshina.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
appeared for an “F-1” visa interview at the United States Embassy in Belgrade, Serbia on October 28, 2024. As a result of the interview, the consular officer provided a Form 221(g) to Konshina.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
to compel the government to perform their duty to complete their review.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the motion to dismiss, ECF No. 10, is ALLOWED and the action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
Motion decided Other motion to dismiss Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the motion to dismiss, ECF No. 10, is ALLOWED and the action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On April 21, 2025, the Public Officials filed their motion to dismiss, with supporting memorandum of law.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the motion to dismiss, ECF No. 10, is ALLOWED and the action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the motion to dismiss, ECF No. 10, is ALLOWED and the action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the motion to dismiss, ECF No. 10, is ALLOWED and the action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
Months pending 3.5 months from the application to the suit; 13.8 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On October 28, 2024, Konshina appeared for an F-1 visa interview at the United States Embassy in Belgrade, Serbia.
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 government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety neededfavors the government
Read by a model
Factors one and two favor the Public Officials.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted Read by a model
these factors favor the Public Officials. The Public Officials acknowledge a rule of reason [8] Case 1:25-cv-10357-WGY Document21_ Filed 12/22/25 Page 9of11 applies, and that typically means a first in, first out policy.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Russia Read by a model
the Plaintiff Ekaterina Konshina (“Konshina”), a Russian citizen,

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-10357
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 22)
Filed
February 11, 2025
Ended
December 22, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
314 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.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

Supreme Court and First 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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.