Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Cheng v. Heller

District of ColumbiaColleen Kollar-KotellyDecided December 14, 2023No. 1:23-cv-03168

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
Because Congress has provided no statutory timeframe indicating how quickly it requires the State Department to adjudicate and re-adjudicate visa applications, TRAC factor two is inapplicable.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiff filed his F-1 visa application in February 2023 and had his interview in March 2023. Compl. ¶ 1. Since then, his application has remained in administrative processing.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Plaintiff filed his F-1 visa application in February 2023 and had his interview in March 2023. Compl. ¶ 1. Since then, his application has remained in administrative processing.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the Court shall sua sponte DISMISS Plaintiff’s [1] Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Complaint for Injunctive Relief in its entirety.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The court on its own Read by a model
the Court shall sua sponte DISMISS Plaintiff’s [1] Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Complaint for Injunctive Relief in its entirety.
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 shall sua sponte DISMISS Plaintiff’s [1] Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Complaint for Injunctive Relief in its entirety.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court shall sua sponte DISMISS Plaintiff’s [1] Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Complaint for Injunctive Relief in its entirety.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court shall sua sponte DISMISS Plaintiff’s [1] Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Complaint for Injunctive Relief in its entirety.
Months pending 8.2 months from the application to the suit; 9.9 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
In February 2023, Plaintiff filed an F-1 visa application.
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 government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
Therefore, the Court finds that the first and second TRAC factors do not lend credence to Plaintiff’s claim.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Therefore, the Court finds that the first and second TRAC factors do not lend credence to Plaintiff’s claim.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality China Read by a model
Plaintiff Hao Cheng is a citizen and resident of China.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-03168
Filed
October 23, 2023
Ended
December 14, 2023
Suit's filing to its end
52 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
idb disp 2 (dismissed: want of prosecution)

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.