Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Sharifullin v. Blinken

District of ColumbiaAmit P. MehtaDecided February 24, 2022No. 1:21-cv-00728

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
He alleges that, following his interview, the State Department did not render a decision on his application but instead placed him in “administrative processing,” and that his application has effectively remained in that state ever since.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
After congressional authorization for the program lapsed, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, this time asserting relief only under the APA for the alleged unreasonable delay in processing his DS-260 immigrant visa application.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
He alleges that, following his interview, the State Department did not render a decision on his application but instead placed him in “administrative processing,” and that his application has effectively remained in that state ever since.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, ECF No. 10, is granted in full.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
The Government moves to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on the basis that Plaintiff cannot satisfy the redressability prong of the Article III standing inquiry
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The Government has moved to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, respectively.
Disposition Granted, neither side prevailed The principal motion was granted in full: summary judgment for either side, an injunction or TRO, a writ or order to act, fees. A motion to dismiss granted in full counts as Dismissed; a transfer is listed apart. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, ECF No. 10, is granted in full.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
For the reasons that follow, the court grants the Government’s motion and dismisses this action as moot.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
For the reasons that follow, the court grants the Government’s motion and dismisses this action as moot.
Months pending 15 months from the application to the suit 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
He then completed his Form DS-260 and submitted the required paperwork, and in November 2019 he was notified that the State Department had scheduled his case for an interview the following month at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
As the court lacks the ability to grant effectual relief, this matter is moot.
Nationality Russia Read by a model
Plaintiff Artur Sharifullin, a Russian citizen and national who wishes to immigrate to the United States

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:21-cv-00728
Filed
March 19, 2021
Ended
February 24, 2022
Suit's filing to its end
342 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant

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.