Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Liu v. Blinken

District of ColumbiaTimothy J. KellyDecided June 18, 2021No. 1:21-cv-00629

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
Soon after, in March 2020, the Secretary of State “suspended all routine visa services,” providing only “emergency” and “mission critical” services.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Because EB-5 visas are immigrant visas, this determination applies to Plaintiffs’ visa applications.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Second, they allege Defendants have unreasonably delayed adjudication of their applications under the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 555(b).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For all these reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss and deny Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction because they have failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
The Court will grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss Count I for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and Count II for failure to state a claim. Thus, the Court will also deny Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
For all these reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss and deny Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction because they have failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
The Court will grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss Count I for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and Count II for failure to state a claim.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The Court will grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss Count I for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and Count II for failure to state a claim.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
After weighing all six factors, the Court ultimately concludes that Plaintiffs fail to state a claim of unreasonable delay under the APA.
The other claims Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
The Court holds that Plaintiffs’ challenge to Defendants’ application of the Presidential Proclamation 9984 to them is now moot.
Months pending Not stated at filing 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
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
Weighing the two factors cumulatively though, the Court finds that they favor Defendants.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Admittedly, this scheme is not that favorable for Plaintiffs, as it places them in the fourth and final tier of priorities. Still, Defendants’ approach is supported by a clear rule of reason.
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
The Court holds that Plaintiffs’ challenge to Defendants’ application of the Presidential Proclamation 9984 to them is now moot.
Nationality China Read by a model
According to the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs are a group of thirty-eight Chinese citizens seeking to immigrate into the United States.
212(f) proclamation Proclamation 9984 Read by a model
First, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ application of Presidential Proclamation 9984 to suspend the processing of their visas is arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2).

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:21-cv-00629
Filed
March 9, 2021
Ended
June 18, 2021
Suit's filing to its end
101 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2021-06-18 for the defendants, ground not stated; idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why.

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.