Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Munyaneza v. Blinken

District of ColumbiaTanya S. ChutkanDecided September 30, 2022No. 1:21-cv-02778

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
In May 2021, Niyibizi had an interview with a consular officer in Nairobi, after which her application was plac ed in “administrative processing.”
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiff Narcisse Munyaneza has petitioned this court for a writ of mandamus to compel Defendants to adjudicate a pending visa application for his wife, Claudine Niyibizi.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
He thus seeks a writ of mandamus ordering Defendants to process the visa within 15 days.
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. The action will be dismissed without prejudice.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
The court will grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss as to the first and third claims , and therefore need not address the consular non- reviewability argument.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants have moved to dismiss , ECF No. 5
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. The action will be dismissed without prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the court will GRANT Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The action will be dismissed without prejudice.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the court will GRANT Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The action will be dismissed without prejudice.
Months pending 16.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
In May 2021, Niyibizi had an interview with a consular officer in Nairobi, after which her application was plac ed in “administrative processing.”
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
Factors one and two , therefore, weigh in favor of the Defendants.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
They are correct; “a judicial order putting [ a plaintiff] at the head of the queue simply moves all others back one space and produces no net gain.”
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:21-cv-02778
Filed
October 19, 2021
Ended
October 3, 2022
Suit's filing to its end
349 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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.