Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Gundas v. Blinken

District of ColumbiaRudolph ContrerasDecided December 10, 2024No. 1:24-cv-01064

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
However, the consular officer confirmed that Mr. Gundas’s application was “still undergoing administrative processing in order to verify [his] qualifications for this visa.”
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
The following month, Mr. Gundas filed a DS-160 application for a non-immigrant visa and his wife and son applied for H-4 visas.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Mr. Gundas further requests that the Court order the Government “to complete their administrative processing and adjudicate [Mr. Gundas’s] visa application within thirty days.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 11) is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
The Government moves to dismiss the Amended Complaint under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The Government moves to dismiss the Amended Complaint under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 11) is GRANTED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 11) is GRANTED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 11) is GRANTED.
Months pending 10 months from the application to the suit; 17.9 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
In June 2023, Mr. Gundas and his family were interviewed at the U.S. Consulate in Iraq.
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
The first and second TRAC factors weigh in the Government’s favor.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
granting Mr. Gundas’s requested relief would “necessarily come at the expense of” applicants who, like Mr. Gundas, have likely also been waiting for months or years for their visas to be adjudicated.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Turkey Read by a model
Plaintiff Osman Gundas is a citizen of Turkey

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-01064
Filed
April 14, 2024
Ended
December 11, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
241 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.