Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Pacheco Quiros v. Amador

District of ColumbiaColleen Kollar-KotellyDecided July 6, 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 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-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
On January 22, 2020, Ms. Karimova appeared for an interview at the U.S. Embassy in Tbilisi, Georgia, and applied for an immigrant visa. Id. The consular officer refused her visa application under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 221(g).
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Plaintiff Karimova already had her interview in January 2020 and her visa application was refused; her application now remains in administrative processin g.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the Court will GRANT Defendants’ Motion and DISMISS Plaintiffs’ [15] Amended Complaint in its entirety.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Summary judgment Read by a model
Defendants filed the pending Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) and also moved for summary judgment.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants filed the pending Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) and also moved for summary judgment.
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’ [ 27] Motion to Dismiss and DISMISS Plaintiff ’s [ 15] Amended Complaint in its entirety.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Court shall dismiss Count I of the Amended Complaint as to Gulshan Karimova and the A. Davila Rivero Family on the merits.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Court shall dismiss Count I of the Amended Complaint as to Gulshan Karimova and the A. Davila Rivero Family on the merits.
The other claims Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
In their opposition, Plaintiffs write that they “agree that Counts II, III and IV of the First Amended Complaint are moot” and that Count I is moot as to all Plaintiffs other than Gulshan Karimova and the A. Davila Rivero Family.
Months pending 41.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On January 22, 2020, Ms. Karimova appeared for an interview at the U.S. Embassy in Tbilisi, Georgia, and applied for an immigrant visa.
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 government
  • 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 Karimova’s claim
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 Consular nonreviewability rejected Read by a model
The Court finds that the doctrine of consular non-reviewability doctrine does not apply to Plaintiff Karimova
Nationality Azerbaijan Read by a model
she is “a national and resident of Azerbaijan.”

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.