Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Li v. Heller

District of ColumbiaDabney L. FriedrichDecided July 12, 2024No. 1:23-cv-03025

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
The State Department and its consular officers “alone [are] responsible” for conducting interviews and rendering decisions on visa applications, and the delay has prolonged the period of separation and dwindled Li ’s savings.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
Li applied for a K -1 visa, but her application was placed in administrative processing after an interview at the U.S. consulate in Guangzhou.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
[m]andat[e] that Defendants process Plaintiff’s visa application within fifteen (15) calendar days of this order or as soon as reasonably possible[.]
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 8.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Before the Court is the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant the motion and dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant the motion and dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant the motion and dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).
Months pending 5 months from the application to the suit; 13.9 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
In May 2023
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 applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
Factors one and two favor the defendants.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Because expediting the delayed action for Li could simply foist the delay upon other applicants, contrary to the State Department’s priorities, the fourth TRAC factor also weighs in the defendants’ favor.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected Read by a model
The Court also rejects the defendants’ argument that consular non-reviewability doctrine bars Li ’s claims.
Nationality China Read by a model
Maxwell Willis Milligan, a United States citizen, is engaged to Shun Ying Li, a Chinese national.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-03025
Filed
October 11, 2023
Ended
July 12, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
275 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant

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.