Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Primeaux v. United States Department of Homeland Security

District of ColumbiaFlorence Y. PanDecided October 22, 2021

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
Primeaux has now waited approximately 19 months for the State Department to schedule Avorque’s interview.
Form or filing DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
The K-1 visa is a nonimmigrant visa that allows a foreign citizen to travel to America to marry his or her U.S.citizen fiancé(e), and then apply for lawful-permanent-resident status.
What the suit asked for Schedule an interview Read by a model
Rather, Primeaux seeks to compel the State Department only to conduct the final interview of Avorque
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss as to the APA claim and will set a hearing on the remaining Due Process claim .
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants now move to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants now move to dismiss Primeaux’s APA claim.
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
Plaintiff’s APA claim therefore must be dismissed.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Plaintiff’s APA claim therefore must be dismissed.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiff’s APA claim therefore must be dismissed.
The other claims The delay claim goes on Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss as to the APA claim and will set a hearing on the remaining Due Process claim .
Months pending 61 months from the application to the suit; 69.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
To obtain a visa, a citizen fiancé must first file an I-129F petition, which Primeaux did on January 16, 2016.
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
In this case, the first two factors favor Defendants.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Indeed, other applicants in the queue undoubtedly also face personal hardships due to the State Department’s delays, and there is no net gain in prioritizing Plaintiff at their expense.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

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