Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Tesfaye v. Blinken

District of ColumbiaColleen Kollar-KotellyDecided September 29, 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
As of September 21, 2022, the consular sec tion of the U.S. Embassy in Ethiopia had scheduled interviews for “359 [FY-2022] DV cases, associated with 590 prospective applicants (selectees and their derivatives).”
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiff Arega attests that his case (2022AF00039044) became “current” on April 1, 2022 and he was notified by the KCC on April 20, 2022 that it had finished processing his DS-260.
What the suit asked for Schedule an interview Read by a model
Plaintiffs seek an order compelling Defendants to schedule their intervie ws before the September 30 deadline and issue diversity visas to them and/or to preserve unused visas during the pendency of this litigation.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ [33] Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ [33] Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ [33] Motion for a 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 Plaintiffs’ [33] Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ [33] Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ [33] Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order.
The other claims Relief denied Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ [33] Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonnot reached
  • 2. Congressional timetablenot reached
  • 3. Human health and welfarenot reached
  • 4. Competing prioritiesnot reached
  • 5. Interests prejudicednot reached
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Granting Plaintiffs’ requested relief would require Defendants to re-order their interview queue, potentially allowing Plaintiffs to move ahead of other similar-situated visa applicants—who, in turn, may lose their opportunity to obtain a visa.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Ethiopia Read by a model
Plaintiffs Assefa Ale Tegegn and Sintayehu Arega are Ethiopian nationals and selectees in the FY-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, this one. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
Tesfaye v. Blinken September 28, 2022 Colleen Kollar-Kotelly Denied in the government's favor
Tesfaye v. BlinkenThis decisionThe 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.