Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Ramirez v. Blinken

District of ColumbiaChristopher R. CooperDecided March 22, 2022No. 1:21-cv-01099

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
They have sued the Department of State and its Secretary under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Mandamus Act, challenging the delay in adjudicating their applications.
Form or filing DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
The plaintiffs in this case are U.S. citizens and their non-citizen fiancés with K-1 visa applications pending or soon to be pending at the U.S. Embassy in Manila, Philippines.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
They ask for a declaration that this alleged failure to act violates the APA and seek a writ of mandamus to compel the government to adjudicate their applications.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant in part and deny in part the Defendants’ 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
The government has moved to dismiss all counts for either lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) or failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The Department and the Secretary move to dismiss the complaint.
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court will allow these delay claims to survive the government’s motion.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court will allow these delay claims to survive the government’s motion.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court will allow these delay claims to survive the government’s motion.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
The Court dismisses Count 2, but Counts 1 and 3 survive to be tested at summary judgment.
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
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the applicant
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfarenot reached
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the applicant
  • 5. Interests prejudicednot reached
  • 6. No impropriety neededfavors the government
Read by a model
The Court concludes that the first factor favors the plaintiffs while the second largely favors the government.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping rejected Read by a model
In this context, then, the Court does not see any evidence that the relief the plaintiffs seek would improperly harm competing agency priorities.
Threshold rulings Held moot; Mootness argument rejected Read by a model
The Court begins with a group of plaintiffs that all parties agree are left with only moot claims: those whose applications have been finally adjudicated.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:21-cv-01099
Filed
April 21, 2021
Ended
October 6, 2022
Suit's filing to its end
533 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
stipulated dismissal 2022-10-05; idb disp 13 (dismissed: settled)

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.