Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Rudd v. United States of America

District of ColumbiaRandolph D. MossDecided April 8, 2026No. 1:25-cv-02646

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
The U.S. Consulate Office also asked Plaintiff to complete a supplemental information form and to provide an updated resume “with no time gaps for [] studies and work experience” to facilitate the processing of his visa application.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
After Plaintiff’s visa interview, the consular officer refused his visa application pursuant to Section 221(g) of the INA
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
that is, he seeks an order compelling Defendants to complete the administrative processing of his application and to issue a final determination.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Dkt. 10, is hereby GRANTED
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Dkt. 10, is hereby GRANTED, and the Court will DISMISS Plaintiff’s Mandamus Act claim for lack of jurisdiction and Plaintiff’s APA and Declaratory Judgment Act claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Now before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
the Court will DISMISS Plaintiff’s Mandamus Act claim for lack of jurisdiction and Plaintiff’s APA and Declaratory Judgment Act claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons that follow, the Court will GRANT Defendants’ motion and will dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
the Court will DISMISS Plaintiff’s Mandamus Act claim for lack of jurisdiction and Plaintiff’s APA and Declaratory Judgment Act claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Months pending 10.5 months from the application to the suit; 18.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On September 23, 2024, Plaintiff completed a visa interview with a consular officer at the U.S. Consulate Office in Montreal, Canada.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings No duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal Read by a model
the Court finds its essential reasoning persuasive and concludes that 5 U.S.C. § 555(b) does not impose a clear legal duty on consular officers to readjudicate a visa application that has been refused and placed in administrative processing.
Nationality Canada Read by a model
Plaintiff is a citizen of Canada

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-02646
Filed
August 21, 2025
Ended
April 8, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
230 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2026-04-08 for the defendants, ground not stated; 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.