Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

MILLIGAN v. POMPEO

District of ColumbiaJames E. BoasbergDecided September 2, 2021No. 1:20-cv-02631

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
Plaintiffs contend that the State Department has unreasonably delayed the adjudication and issuance of their visas during the pandemic in countries both subject to the Proclamations and not .
Form or filing DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiffs also maintain that Defendants have unreasonably delayed the processing of K -1 visa applications in all countries, constituting agency action unlawfully withheldunder the APA .
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs contend that the State Department has unreasonably delayed the adjudication and issuance of their visas during the pandemic in countries both subject to the Proclamations and not .
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 lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion invokes the legal standards for dismissal under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
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
Rather, they argue that the delay is not unreasonable and that Plaintiffs’ claim s shouldbe dismissed. The Court concurs.
The other claims Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ claims regarding the Proclamations are thus 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
no Plaintiff has h ad a visa application pending for longer than 18 months.
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 neededfavors the government
Read by a model
The first two TRAC factors support Defendants, as they did when the Court initially considered the issue .
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
The fourth factor —which examines “the effect of expediting delayed action on agency activities of a higher or competing priority,” TRAC , 750 F.2d at 80 —weighs heavily in Defendants’ favor.
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ claims regarding the Proclamations are thus moot.
212(f) proclamation A proclamation under 212(f) Read by a model
Proclamation Plaintiffs had demonstrated a likelihood of success onthe claim that State’s reliance on 8 U.S.C. §1182(f) to suspend processing K -1 visas wa s unlawful

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision, this one. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
MILLIGAN v. POMPEO November 19, 2020 James E. Boasberg Granted in part
MILLIGAN v. POMPEOThis decisionThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted September 2, 2021 James E. Boasberg Dismissed

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:20-cv-02631
Filed
September 17, 2020
Ended
September 2, 2021
Suit's filing to its end
190 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 12 (dismissed: voluntarily)

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.