Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Li v. Blinken

District of ColumbiaTanya S. ChutkanDecided September 30, 2023No. 1:22-cv-02331

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
Plaintiffs allege that the State Department has either unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed issuing their visa numbers, and asks the court to order the agency to act.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiffs have applied for EB-5 visas that would grant them residency status in the United States, and the State Department has not yet fully adjudicated their petitions and issued them visas.
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
Plaintiffs allege that the State Department has either unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed issuing their visa numbers, and asks the court to order the agency to act.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons explained above, the Government’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 24, will be 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 reasons explained above, the Government’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 24, will be GRANTED.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants have moved to dismiss, and the court will GRANT their motion.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the reasons explained above, the Government’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 24, will be GRANTED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Counts III and IV will accordingly be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Counts III and IV will accordingly be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Months pending Not stated at filing The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Consequently, there is no relief for the court to grant Plaintiffs against DHS, and Counts I and II will be dismissed as moot.
Nationality China Read by a model
Plaintiffs in this case are 308 Chinese nationals whose petitions for EB-5 visas have been approved by USCIS, and who claim they are all entitled to receive visa numbers.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:22-cv-02331
Filed
August 5, 2022
Ended
September 30, 2023
Suit's filing to its end
421 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant

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.