Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Sychev v. Cuccinelli

District of ColumbiaColleen Kollar-KotellyDecided March 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
Unlike visa cases where the applicable agency has yet to act, the State Department has acted, and acted in such a way as to delay the ultimate adjudication of Plaintiff’s visa application.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa); I-526 (investor petition) Read by a model
Plaintiff, a citizen of the Russian Federation, submitted an I -526 petition for an EB-5 visa to DHS on March 24, 2016.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Unlike visa cases where the applicable agency has yet to act, the State Department has acted, and acted in such a way as to delay the ultimate adjudication of Plaintiff’s visa application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the Court shall GRANT IN PART AND HOLD IN ABEYANCE IN PART Defendants’ [15] Motion to Dismiss.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Defendants first move to dismiss the complaint as against the DHS Defendants on mootness grounds.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
the Court shall GRANT IN PART AND HOLD IN ABEYANCE IN PART Defendants’ [15] Motion to Dismiss.
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
BecauseDHS has already conveyed Plaintiff’s visa application for processing to the State Department’s National Visa Center (“NVC”), the Court shall dismiss as moot the complaint as against the DHS Defendants .
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
BecauseDHS has already conveyed Plaintiff’s visa application for processing to the State Department’s National Visa Center (“NVC”), the Court shall dismiss as moot the complaint as against the DHS Defendants .
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
As for the State Department Defendants, the Court shall order additional briefing from the parties before ruling.
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
Plaintiff, a citizen of the Russian Federation, submitted an I -526 petition for an EB-5 visa to DHS on March 24, 2016.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonnot reached
  • 2. Congressional timetablenot reached
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
Plaintiff falls short of meeting the third and fifth TRAC factors of showing that human health and welfare are at stake or that there are other interests prejudiced by the ag ency’sdelay.
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
BecauseDHS has already conveyed Plaintiff’s visa application for processing to the State Department’s National Visa Center (“NVC”), the Court shall dismiss as moot the complaint as against the DHS Defendants .
Nationality Russia Read by a model
Plaintiff, a citizen of the Russian Federation

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.