Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Penn v. Blinken

District of ColumbiaTimothy J. KellyDecided March 29, 2022No. 1:21-cv-01055

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
But the State Department has already resumed issuing and reissuing visas, and adjudicating K visa applications.
Form or filing DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiffs are American citizens and their foreign spouses-to-be who applied for K-1 nonimmigrant visas.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Finally, Plaintiffs ask this Court to “compel” Defendants to adjudicate their visas “without further delay.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For all these 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 moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims under Federal Rules of Civil Proced ure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject mat ter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For all these reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For all these reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For all these reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Thus, no matter which framework applies—standing or mootness —this Court lacks jurisdiction to review these plaintiffs’ claims about the proclamations.
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
As far as the record reflects, at this point the longest time that any of these plaintiffs has been waiting is about 22 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
And it, along with the second factor, cut s in Defendants’ favor.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
The fourth factor, which asks the Court to analyze “the effect of expediting delayed action on agency activities of a higher or competing priority ,” heavily favors Defendants, though.
Threshold rulings Held moot; Mootness argument rejected Read by a model
The Court will dismiss as moot all claims asserted by the foreign plaintiffs whose visa applications have already been adjudicated, as well as the associated claims of their American spouses-to-be.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:21-cv-01055
Filed
April 15, 2021
Ended
March 29, 2022
Suit's filing to its end
348 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2022-03-29 for the defendants, ground not stated; 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.