Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Botnari v. Garland

District of ColumbiaLoren L. AlikhanDecided November 29, 2024No. 1:24-cv-00599

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 USCIS Read by a model
The Department of Homeland Security has assigned the task of adjudicating refugee petitions to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”).
Form or filing I-730 (refugee or asylee relative petition) Read by a model
seeking to compel a decision on Ms. Trofimova’s Refugee Relative Petition (Form I-730) for her husband, Mr. Botnari.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
seeking to compel a decision on Ms. Trofimova’s Refugee Relative Petition (Form I-730) for her husband, Mr. Botnari.
Kind of order A transfer order Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the court will transfer the case to the District of Nevada but otherwise deny Defendants’ motion.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Other motion to dismiss; Transfer Read by a model
Defendants seek to have this case transferred to the District of Nevada under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). ECF No. 12. Additionally, Defendants move to dismiss the case for improper venue under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) and for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants moved to transfer the case from this court to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)
Disposition Transferred to another court An order moving the case to another court. It decides where the suit is heard, not who wins, so it is not counted as either side's win. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the court will transfer the case to the District of Nevada but otherwise deny Defendants’ motion.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the court will transfer the case to the District of Nevada but otherwise deny Defendants’ motion.
The delay claim Not decided here Read by a model
If Defendants wish to dismiss Attorney General Garland or Secretary Mayorkas for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), they may renew that argument after the case is transferred.
Months pending 15.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Ms. Trofimova was granted asylee status in July 2023. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 10, 24. The following month, she filed a Form I-730 petition seeking refugee status for Mr. Botnari under 8 U.S.C. § 1157(c)(2) and 8 C.F.R. § 207.7(a).
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-00599
Filed
March 1, 2024
Ended
February 4, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
340 days
How it ended
Transferred
From the record
idb disp 0 (transferred to another district)

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.