Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Logan v. Blinken

District of ColumbiaFlorence Y. PanDecided August 29, 2022No. 1:21-cv-02275

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,996 written decisions from 2,731 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided November 12, 2026. Updated November 14, 2026 at 1:17 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 1,617 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,406 (87%), 1,039 of them in this group, measured November 14, 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
At this stage in the process, the visa application requires an interview with Yankson’s in-country consulate, and the authority to adjudicate Logan’s visa application rests solely with that consulate — the State Department’s Embassy in Ghana.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Logan does not challenge USCIS’s conduct in approving her initial visa petition, but seeks only to compel the State Department to conduct her husband’s interview and conclude the visa application process.
What the suit asked for Schedule an interview Read by a model
Logan does not challenge USCIS’s conduct in approving her initial visa petition, but seeks only to compel the State Department to conduct her husband’s interview and conclude the visa application process.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and will deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Summary judgment Read by a model
Defendants now move to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6); and Plaintiff moves for summary judgment under Rule 56.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
Defendants now move to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6); and Plaintiff moves for summary judgment under Rule 56.
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 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and will deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and will deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Logan’s APA and Mandamus Act claims must therefore be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).
Months pending 13 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
The delay between that last government action and the filing of this suit was approximately thirteen 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 neededneutral
Read by a model
The first two TRAC factors — focusing on the reasonableness of the delay and whether Congress has set a timeline for completion of the action in question — favor Defendants.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
The Court sees no reason to doubt Defendants’ factual assertion that the Embassy in Ghana “process[es] all cases according to their priority date.”
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:21-cv-02275
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 14)
Filed
August 27, 2021
Ended
August 29, 2022
Suit's filing to its end
367 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.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.