Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Tate v. Pompeo

District of ColumbiaBeryl A. HowellDecided January 16, 2021No. 1:20-cv-03249

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
On March 20, 2020, the State Department directed all U.S. embassies and Consulates to “suspend all routine visa services due to the COVID-19 pandemic.”
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiffs in this case are eighteen applicants for nonimmigrant O-1 and O-3 visas
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs have brought this suit to challenge the State Department’s visa policy as unlawful and to compel resumption the adjudication of their visas.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is therefore granted in part and denied in part.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is therefore granted in part and denied in part.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
On December 4, 2020, plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction.
Disposition Granted in part The principal motion was granted in part and denied in part. Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is therefore granted in part and denied in part.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
The Court agrees with plaintiffs—and the decisions of two other Judges in this district— that the State Department has acted unlawfully in suspending O-visa processing based on the Presidential Proclamations, which pertain only to entry, but defendants prevail on the delay claim.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
defendants prevail on the delay claim.
The other claims Relief ordered Read by a model
the State Department is enjoined from relying on the Presidential Proclamations to suspend or refuse visa adjudications for those plaintiffs covered by the Proclamations.
Months pending 10 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiffs have been collectively waiting ten months for visa adjudication since U.S. Embassies and Consulates initially shut down in March 2020, though some have been waiting somewhat longer and some have been waiting less.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonneutral
  • 2. Congressional timetableneutral
  • 3. Human health and welfarenot reached
  • 4. Competing prioritiesnot reached
  • 5. Interests prejudicednot reached
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
The first and second TRAC factors are considered together and are neutral.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected Read by a model
Plaintiffs respond that the doctrine does not apply—and thus judicial review is available—where plaintiffs challenge the State Department’s policies rather than the individual determination of a consular officer. Pls.’ Reply at 11. The Court agrees.
212(f) proclamation A proclamation under 212(f) Read by a model
defendants’ implementation of the Presidential Proclamations under § 1182(f) to suspend issuance of O visas in Proclamation-designated countries violates the APA

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:20-cv-03249
Filed
November 10, 2020
Ended
May 5, 2021
Suit's filing to its end
176 days
How it ended
Transferred
From the record
idb disp 0 (transferred to another district)

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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.