Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

FANG v. RUBIO

District of ColumbiaReggie B. WaltonDecided November 5, 2026No. 1:25-cv-03509

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,948 written decisions from 2,691 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided November 10, 2026. Updated November 11, 2026 at 1:21 p.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 1,632 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,398 (86%), measured November 11, 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
Lastly, the petitioner must complete “the actual visa application through the Department of State by applying at his local embassy or consulate,” which “typically includes an in-person interview that results in a grant or denial of the visa application.”
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
The plaintiff alleges that “[a]t the conclusion of the interview, the [visa] application was placed under administrative processing.”
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
The plaintiff alleges that “[a]t the conclusion of the interview, the [visa] application was placed under administrative processing.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that it must grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Currently pending before the Court is the defendants’ motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Currently pending before the Court is the defendants’ motion to dismiss 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 of the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that it must grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that it must grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Because the Court ultimately concludes that it must grant the defendants’ motion and dismiss the action because any delay in adjudicating his visa application is not unreasonable, the Court need not address this argument.
Months pending 6.2 months from the application to the suit; 22.8 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
on December 10, 2024, the plaintiff attended a visa interview at the U.S. Embassy in Shanghai, China
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
Thus, the first two factors, considered together, favor the defendants.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
But, “[c]ompelling agency action on [her] visa application would ‘impose offsetting burdens on equally worthy’ applicants by effectively putting [her] ‘at the head of the queue,’ thereby ‘mov[ing] all others back one space and produc[ing] no net gain[.]’”
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality China Read by a model
The plaintiff is “a citizen of China and is the beneficiary of an approved H-1B petition.”

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-03509
Filed
September 30, 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 11, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.