Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Yacoub v. Blinken

District of ColumbiaTanya S. ChutkanDecided September 30, 2022

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 also seek a writ of mandamus compelling the State Department to adjudicate their K visas.
Form or filing DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiffs are nineteen United States citizens who are seeking K-1 immigration visas for their fiancées and fiancés.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs also seek a writ of mandamus compelling the State Department to adjudicate their K visas.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons explained above, the court will GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 5.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
For the reasons explained above, the court will GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 5.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants have moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ lawsuit
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the reasons explained above, the court will GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 5.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons explained above, the court will GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 5.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
the court finds that Plaintiffs have not alleged sufficient facts to show that Defendants unreasonably delayed agency action, and therefore will grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ unreasonable delay claim.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Stated differently, Plaintiffs have not alleged any facts showing that their alleged injuries are traceable to the Regional Proclamations, and consequently, the court will dismiss their arbitrary and capricious claims for a lack of standing.
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 neededfavors the government
Read by a model
As such, the first and second TRAC factors weig h in Defendants’ favor.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
A “judicial order putting [Plaintiffs] at the head of the queue simply moves all others back one space and produces no net gain.”
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Accordingly, the court will dismiss those Plaintiffs’ claims as moot.

How the case ended

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

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.