Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Sadiq v. Rubio

District of ColumbiaSparkle L. SooknananDecided April 3, 2026No. 1:25-cv-02448

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
After his visa interview in 2024, his application was placed into administrative processing, and the State Department has taken no further action since then.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
In April 2018, he submitted a Form DS-160 to apply for a B1/B2 visa.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
In July 2025, Mr. Sadiq sued several officials charged with overseeing the United States’ immigration system, seeking an order directing them to adjudicate his visa application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 3.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
The Defendants have moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 3.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 3.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 3.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
But the TRAC factors squarely require dismissal of his Complaint.
Months pending 87 months from the application to the suit; 95.6 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
In April 2018, he submitted a Form DS-160 to apply for a B1/B2 visa.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfareneutral
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedneutral
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
Thus, these factors weigh in favor of the Defendants.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
The Court concludes that this factor favors the Defendants here too.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Germany Read by a model
Mr. Sadiq is a citizen and resident of Germany.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-02448
Filed
July 29, 2025
Ended
April 3, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
248 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2026-04-03 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.