Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

R2 TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION v. BLINKEN

District of ColumbiaLoren L. AliKhanDecided February 7, 2025No. 1:24-cv-00369

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
On February 7, 2024, R2 Technologies filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the Secretary of State to adjudicate Mr. Kandasamy’s and Mr. Kuruba’s visa applications.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
to adjudicate nonimmigrant H-1B visa applications for its employees, Ravi Mohan Kuruba and Sidharth Kandasamy.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
But R2 Technologies does not seek to have Mr. Kandasamy’s and Mr. Kuruba’s visa applications revised; rather, it seeks to have the adjudications completed.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the court will grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 12.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants have moved to dismiss R2 Technologies’ claims under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (b)(6). ECF No. 12. For the reasons explained below, the court will dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the court will grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 12.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Accordingly, the court will dismiss the complaint.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the court will grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 12.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, the court will dismiss the complaint.
Months pending 10.3 months from the application to the suit; 24.9 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
By January 11, 2023, Mr. Kandasamy had submitted the necessary additional forms, documentation, and fees to schedule his interview with the consular officer.
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
Accordingly, the first and second TRAC factors favor Defendants.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Such would be the case here, where moving Mr. Kandasamy and Mr. Kuruba to the front of the H-1B visa-adjudication line would merely reorder all applicants with no change in the overall timeline.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found Read by a model
Mr. Kandasamy’s and Mr. Kuruba’s visa applications remain in administrative processing. See ECF No. 11 ¶ 18. Thus, the doctrine does not apply.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-00369
Filed
February 7, 2024
Ended
February 7, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
366 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.