Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Sultanpuram v. Blinken

District of ColumbiaJia M. CobbDecided December 20, 2024No. 1:23-cv-00776

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
Her application has been stuck in limbo with the Department of State since February 2022.
Form or filing I-612 Read by a model
In April 2021, Sultanpuram applied for a waiver of the two-year residency requirement.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
She alleges that the State Department has violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., by unreasonably delaying its adjudication of her waiver application, and asks this Court to compel the State Department to act.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, ECF 8, is DENIED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Disposition Denied in the applicant's favor The principal motion was denied in full: a motion to dismiss denied so the case goes on, or relief denied on the merits. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, ECF 8, is DENIED.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, ECF 8, is DENIED.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, ECF 8, is DENIED.
Months pending 23.2 months from the application to the suit; 44.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
In April 2021, Sultanpuram applied for a waiver of the two-year residency requirement.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the applicant
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the applicant
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the applicant
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
In sum: TRAC factors one through five weigh against dismissal, and factor six is neutral.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping rejected Read by a model
This Court faces the same problem: it cannot say, on the record before it, whether ordering Defendants to adjudicate Sultanpuram’s application would displace an applicant ahead of her in line. The fourth TRAC factor therefore weighs against dismissal.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality India Read by a model
Nikhila Reddy Sultanpuram is a citizen of India who lives in Texas.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-00776
Filed
March 23, 2023
Ended
December 27, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
645 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
voluntary dismissal 2024-12-23; idb disp 12 (dismissed: voluntarily)

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.