Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Stone v. U.S. Embassy Tokyo

District of ColumbiaRudolph ContrerasDecided July 24, 2020

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
Finally, Plaintiff seeks to add a claim for an order to compel the Department of State to issue a visa for his wife.
Form or filing DS-2029; DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
At most, the Court could only issue a mandamus to the Department of State to take action on the visa application, but could not order the Department of State to approve the application and issue Plaintiff’s wife’s visa, as Plaintiff has requested.
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
The Court will allow Plaintiff to amend his complaint to include a request for an order to compel U.S. citizenship for his second-born child.
Kind of order A procedural order Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff’s filings, which the Court has construed as motions to amend.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff’s filings, which the Court has construed as motions to amend.
Disposition Procedural order A scheduling, briefing, stay, show-cause or other procedural order. Not counted as either side's win. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff’s filings, which the Court has construed as motions to amend.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff’s filings, which the Court has construed as motions to amend.
The delay claim Not decided here Read by a model
This claim is currently the subject of a separate summary judgment briefing and not at issue here.
The other claims Not decided here Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff’s filings, which the Court has construed as motions to amend.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
because Defendants had not issued her visa, despite Plaintiff submitting an I-130 (Petition for Alien Relative) on behalf of his wife more than a year prior.

How the case ended

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

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.