Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Dean v. United States Department of Homeland Security

District of ColumbiaColleen Kollar-KotellyDecided July 15, 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 National Visa Center Read by a model
Defendants argue that because Plaintiff ’s visa application is currently with NVC for review, there is no relief the Court could grant against DHS.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
to more expeditiously process a Form I-130 immigrant visa for his spouse, Penzy Kanwal (“Beneficiary”)
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
to more expeditiously process a Form I-130 immigrant visa for his spouse, Penzy Kanwal (“Beneficiary”), pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act’s (“APA”) bar on “unreasonabl[e] delay.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the Court shall GRANT Defendants’[ 6] 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 now move under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)and 12(b)(6) to dismiss Plaintiff ’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, respectively
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
the Court shall GRANT Defendants’[ 6] Motion to Dismiss.
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 GRANT S Defendants’ [6] Motion to Dismiss and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s [1] Complaint.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The Court shall also DISMISS the remaining claims as against the State Department defendants for failure to state a claim.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
the Court holds that Plaintiff’s claim of unreasonable delay under the APA fails as a matter of law and therefore dismisses that count.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
The Court shall also DISMISS the remaining claims as against the State Department defendants for failure to state a claim.
Months pending 28.4 months from the application to the suit 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
On March 13, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Form I -130 visa petition on behalf of his spouse, paying all applicable visa and filing fees.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetableneutral
  • 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
The applicable case law fails to support Plaintiff’s claim that the State Department has unreasonably delayed the processing of his I-130 visa petition.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
In general, courts in this jurisdiction have regularly found that the Government applies a “rule of reason” to review of visa petitions by adjudicating applications in the order they were filed.
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Because DHS 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 Pakistan Read by a model
Plaintiff’s spouse, Penzy Kanwal , is a citizen and resident of Pakistan
I-130 category Family preference Read by a model
Plaintiff Dempsy Dean is a lawful permanent resident of the United States. Compl. at ¶ 1. Plaintiff’s spouse, Penzy Kanwal , is a citizen and resident of Pakistan

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.