Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Whitlock v. United States Department of Homeland Security

District of ColumbiaDabney L. FriedrichDecided February 11, 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
It is the job of the consular officer—and not anyone from DHS—to render a decision on Sevilla’s visa application.
Form or filing DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
The main form the petitioner and applicant must submit to the State Department is Form DS-160, an online application for a fiancé(e) visa .
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Larry Eugene Whitlock brings this suit—a petition for a writ of mandamus and a complaint under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA)—to compel the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and others to process his foreign fiancée’s visa application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant the defendants’-respondents’ 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
Before the Court is t he defendants-respondents’ motion to dismiss under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant the defendants’-respondents’ 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 will grant the defendants’-respondents’ motion to dismiss.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant the defendants’-respondents’ motion to dismiss.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, Whitlock’s APA claim fails and his Mandamus Act claim with it.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court rejects Whitlock’s due process claim.
Months pending 18 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
The State Department has taken eighteen months to process Sevilla’s application and schedule an interview with her.
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 factors, often considered together, see, e.g., Tate, 513 F. Supp. 3d at 148; Milligan, 502 F. Supp. 3d at 317 ; Khan, 2021 WL 5356267, at *3, favor the defendantsrespondents.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
The relief Whitlock requests “would simply reorder a queue of applicants seeking adjudication.”
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Philippines Read by a model
his Filipino fiancée, Dannalyn Ferrer Sevilla

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.