Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Sindt v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

District of ColumbiaColleen Kollar-KotellyDecided March 1, 2023

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 National Visa Center Read by a model
Because USCIS has reaffirmed and conveyed Plaintiff’s visa application for processing to the State Department’s National Visa Center (“NVC”), all claims as against the USCIS Defendants are moot.
Form or filing I-130 (relative petition) Read by a model
On April 15, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Form I-130 visa petition on behalf of his spouse, paying all applicable visa and filing fees.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
On the merits, Plaintiff insists that the State Department Defendants have not adjudicated his application “within a reasonable time” as required by the Administrative Procedure Act
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court shall GRANT Defendants’ [7] Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment and DISMISS Plaintiff’s [1] Complaint.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court shall GRANT Defendants’ [7] Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment and DISMISS Plaintiff’s [1] Complaint.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (“Mot.”), ECF No. 7;
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 GRANT Defendants’ [7] Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment and DISMISS Plaintiff’s [1] Complaint.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court shall GRANT Defendants’ [7] Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment and DISMISS Plaintiff’s [1] Complaint.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court shall GRANT Defendants’ [7] Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment and DISMISS Plaintiff’s [1] Complaint.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiff’s due process argument lacks merit and the Court will accordingly dismiss it.
Months pending 23 months from the application to the suit 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
On April 15, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Form I-130 visa petition on behalf of his spouse, paying all applicable visa and filing fees.
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 government
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
Simply put, the inquiry begins and ends with Defendants’ consistent application of the “first-in, first-out” methodology.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Simply put, the inquiry begins and ends with Defendants’ consistent application of the “first-in, first-out” methodology.
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Because USCIS has reaffirmed and conveyed Plaintiff’s visa application for processing to the State Department’s National Visa Center (“NVC”), all claims as against the USCIS Defendants are moot.
Nationality Cambodia Read by a model
Plaintiff’s spouse, Sophea Chhem, is a citizen and resident of the Kingdom of Cambodia.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Plaintiff Zechariah Sindt is a citizen of the United States. Compl. at ¶ 1. Plaintiff’s spouse, Sophea Chhem, is a citizen and resident of the Kingdom of Cambodia.

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.