Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

RUHUMURIZA v. JADDOU

District of ColumbiaSparkle L. SooknananDecided March 3, 2026No. 1:25-cv-00109

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 USCIS Read by a model
Each of the Plaintiffs “timely submitted a Request for Review” (RFR) asking USCIS to reconsider its decision.
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
They brought this lawsuit against the Acting Director of USCIS, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, alleging that the Defendants have unreasonably delayed adjudicating their requests for reconsideration.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The Court grants that motion in all but one respect.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
The Defendants now move to dismiss this lawsuit under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On April 30, 2025, the Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
In the absence of such a showing, the Court is compelled to deny their processing- delay claims.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
In the absence of such a showing, the Court is compelled to deny their processing- delay claims.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
In the absence of such a showing, the Court is compelled to deny their processing- delay claims.
The other claims Some dismissed, some go on Read by a model
Further, the Plaintiffs’ claim relating to Executive Order 14163 must be dismissed in most respects as meritless or fatally underdeveloped. That claim survives dismissal only insofar as it raises an arbitrary-and-capricious claim.
Months pending 97 months from the application to the suit; 110.6 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
The Plaintiffs submitted their RFRs between December 2016 and March 2019.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model
Thus, this Court concludes that Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) does not strip its jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ processing-delay claims.
Nationality Congo Read by a model
The Plaintiffs in this case are eleven Congolese nationals

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-00109
Filed
January 14, 2025
Ended
March 27, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
437 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
stipulated dismissal 2026-03-26; idb disp 12 (dismissed: voluntarily)

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.