Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Younus v. Palmer

District of ColumbiaTanya S. ChutkanDecided August 1, 2025No. 1:24-cv-02333

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
In June 2024, in response to an email inquiring about his application status, the Embassy informed Khan that his “application is subject to additional administrative processing, which is mandatory and cannot be waived.”
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
After Khan’s December 2023 interview at the U.S. Embassy, his application was refused and placed into “administrative processing.”
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
She seeks an order directing authorities to process Khan’s visa application “within fifteen (15) calendar days” of its forthcoming order.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the above reasons, the court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss, arguing that Petitioner failed to state a claim.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss, arguing that Petitioner failed to state a claim.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the above reasons, the court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the above reasons, the court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Because Petitioner does not allege “that an agency failed to take a discrete agency action that it is required to take,” Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss will be granted.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Petitioner’s Due Process claim fares no better, whether styled as a substantive or procedural due process claim.
Months pending 19.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
After Khan’s December 2023 interview at the U.S. Embassy, his application was refused and placed into “administrative processing.”
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 TRAC factors tilt in Defendants’ favor because Congress tends to give agencies “wide” discretion in their visa processing timelines.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
The fourth TRAC factor also leans in Defendants’ favor because granting expedited agency action is considered inappropriate when that relief “would simply ‘reorder’ a queue of applicants seeking adjudication”
Threshold rulings No duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal Read by a model
Although Petitioner points to Section 1202(b) under the INA, Section 555(b) under the APA, and the Fifth Amendment, none establish a duty for Defendants.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-02333
Filed
August 12, 2024
Ended
August 4, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
357 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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.