Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Kahenya v. Blinken

District of ColumbiaTanya S. ChutkanDecided March 25, 2024No. 1:23-cv-00740

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
Since that time, “NVC has made no requests for further information or evidence from the Plaintiffs,” but has not yet scheduled their visa interview with a consular officer.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiffs are Kenyan nationals awaiting an interview appointment to apply for immigrant visas to the United States.
What the suit asked for Schedule an interview Read by a model
They claim that the delay violates Defendants’ “duty to schedule Plaintiffs’ interviews within a reasonable period of time” and is therefore unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For these reasons, the court will GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 7, and DENY as moot Plaintiffs’ Motion to Advance, ECF No. 10.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants have moved to dismiss the case under Federal Rules of Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
For these reasons, the court will GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 7, and DENY as moot Plaintiffs’ Motion to Advance, ECF No. 10.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
The court cannot conclude that Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged an unreasonable delay, and their Complaint must be dismissed.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For these reasons, the court will GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 7, and DENY as moot Plaintiffs’ Motion to Advance, ECF No. 10.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ Complaint must be dismissed because they have failed to plausibly allege an unreasonable delay as a matter of law.
Months pending 18.3 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
According to the Complaint, USCIS approved their visa petitions in July 2022, and they completed all required submissions to the NVC in September 2022.
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
The first and second factors favor Defendants.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
That methodology is an identifiable rationale, so the only remaining question is whether it produces unreasonable delay here.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Kenya Read by a model
Plaintiffs are Kenyan nationals awaiting an interview appointment to apply for immigrant visas to the United States.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-00740
Filed
March 17, 2023
Ended
March 26, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
375 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.