Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Tesfaye v. Blinken

District of ColumbiaColleen Kollar-KotellyDecided September 28, 2022No. 1:22-cv-00411

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,917 written decisions from 2,664 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 7:07 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
They have cited no provision compelling the State Department to take any further adjudicative steps as to their diversity visas within a certain time period.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiffs were interviewed by a consular officer at the United States Embassy in Khartoum, Sudan on August 9, 2022 and subsequently received notice that their diversity visa petitions were “refused” under INA § 221(g).
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Based on the record presently before the Court, Plaintiffs’ application remains in “administrative processing.” Plaintiffs seek an order compelling Defendants to process their visa application and/or preserve visas past the September 30 deadline.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ [31] Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s [31] Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ [31] Motion for Temporary Restraining Order.
Disposition Denied in the government's favor The principal motion was denied in full: a motion to dismiss denied so the case goes on, or relief denied on the merits. Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s [31] Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s [31] Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ [31] Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order.
The other claims Not decided here Read by a model
Although Plaintiffs’ Complaint challenges certain State Department policies pertaining to the scheduling of interviews, Plaintiffs concede that these policies are “not at issue for Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order.”
Months pending 1.6 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On August 9, 2022, Plaintiffs were interviewed by the Consular Section of the U.S. Embassy in Khartoum.
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 applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededfavors the government
Read by a model
In sum, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their unreasonable delay claim as to the first TRAC factor.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Plaintiffs have provided no persuasive arguments or facts to suggest that Defendants’ alleged “delay” in processing their visa applications is contrary to a rule a reason.
Threshold rulings No duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal Read by a model
They have cited no provision compelling the State Department to take any further adjudicative steps as to their diversity visas within a certain time period.
Nationality Sudan Read by a model
Plaintiff Abd Elrahman Abdin Elfaki Abdllatif is a national of Sudan and a selectee of the 2022 diversity visa lottery.

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
Tesfaye v. BlinkenThis decision September 28, 2022 Colleen Kollar-Kotelly Denied in the government's favor
Tesfaye v. BlinkenThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted September 29, 2022 Colleen Kollar-Kotelly Denied in the government's favor

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:22-cv-00411
Filed
February 15, 2022
Ended
October 5, 2022
Suit's filing to its end
232 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
voluntary dismissal 2022-10-04; idb disp 12 (dismissed: voluntarily)

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.