Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

DU v. BONDI

District of ColumbiaSparkle L. SooknananDecided November 10, 2026No. 1:25-cv-03193

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
Since then—and despite inquiries from two Members of Congress— the Department of State has taken no further action on Mr. Du’s application.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
Rui Du, a Chinese national residing in Singapore, applied for an L-1 visa in January 2025.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
to compel adjudication of his visa application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The Court therefore grants the Defendants’ motion and dismisses 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 Defendants have moved 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
The Defendants have moved 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
The Court therefore grants the Defendants’ motion and dismisses this case.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The Court therefore grants the Defendants’ motion and dismisses this case.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The Court therefore grants the Defendants’ motion and dismisses this case.
Months pending 7.9 months from the application to the suit; 21.8 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On January 16, 2025, Mr. Du submitted the requisite documents and attended his visa interview at the U.S. Embassy in Singapore.
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
So the first and second TRAC factors favor the Government.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Moreover, Mr. Du’s assertion that a judicial order prioritizing his application would not prejudice other visa applicants within the Section 221(g) administrative review process strains credulity.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality China Read by a model
Mr. Du, a Chinese citizen residing in Singapore, applied for an L-1 visa.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-03193
Filed
September 13, 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.