Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Schwartz v. United States Department of Homeland Security

District of ColumbiaJames E. BoasbergDecided September 10, 2021

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,917 written decisions from 2,664 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 7:07 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
Exploringany avenue to relief, Schwartzalso asserts that the State Department’s delay violates his right to due process under the Fifth Amendment.
Form or filing DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
K-1 fiancé(e) visa petitions, the same type of petition at issue here
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Hopingto expedite the process and obtain a decision on Arafiles’s visa, Schwartz filed this lawsuitagainst multiple Government Defendants.
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.
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 for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
Months pending 12.8 months from the application to the suit; 19.6 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
He filed an I -129F petition on January 21, 2020, and USCIS approved the petition on July 9 of that year.
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
The first two factors — which ask whether Congress set a timeline for completion of the action and whether the agency’s actions are governed by a rule of reason —are typically considered together and favor Defendants here.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
The fourth TRAC factor , which evaluates the impact of expediting the delayed action on other agency priorities,tips toward the Government.
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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.