Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

CHANDANE v. RUBIO

District of ColumbiaChristopher R. CooperDecided November 12, 2026No. 1:26-cv-01740

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
Since Mr. Chandane filed his lawsuit, the U.S. Consulate General in Hyderabad has interviewed Chandane for his visa application.
Form or filing DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
In April 2026, Chandane applied for an H-4 nonimmigrant visa
What the suit asked for Schedule an interview Read by a model
Specifically, Chandane complained that Defendants had shirked their “obligation to provide access to the required procedural steps necessary for adjudication, including the scheduling of biometric collection and consular interview appointments.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
To the extent Chandane seeks a final adjudication of his application, the Court will dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), claiming that a consular database had no record of Chandane’s H-4 application.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), claiming that a consular database had no record of Chandane’s H-4 application.
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
To the extent Chandane has been provided with the procedural visa-processing relief he seeks, the Court will dismiss his complaint as moot.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Nonetheless, the court will dismiss the case to the extent Chandane seeks a Court order compelling the agency to adjudicate his visa application.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
To the extent Chandane seeks a final adjudication of his application, the Court will dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.
Months pending 1 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
In April 2026, Chandane applied for an H-4 nonimmigrant visa
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
TRAC factors one and two weigh decisively against Chandane.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
The fourth TRAC factor favors the government, since the effect of compelling action on Chandane’s application would “impose offsetting burdens on equally worthy” applicants by putting him “at the head of the queue,”
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
To the extent Chandane requests that the Court order “Defendants to provide Plaintiff access to the required consular processing steps necessary for adjudication of his H-4 visa application,” Compl. at 6 ¶ 1, this case is moot and must be dismissed
Nationality India Read by a model
Niket Ananda Chandane, an Indian citizen

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:26-cv-01740
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 9)
Filed
May 21, 2026
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.

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 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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.