Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

RAI v. BIDEN

District of ColumbiaTanya S. ChutkanDecided September 27, 2021No. 1:21-cv-00863

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 and its Kentucky Consular Center unlawfully implemented two Presidential Proclamations to suspend the processing, adjudication, and issuance of their 2021 diversity visa applications.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
they must then submit a DS-260, Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application, and various supporting documents to the KCC.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Therefore, the court will order Defendants to undertake good faith efforts to expeditiously process and adjudicate 2021 diversity visa applications and derivative beneficiary applications by September 30, 2021,
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the court will GRANT in part and DENY in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss and will GRANT in part and DENY in part Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
The government has moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ECF No. 38. For the reasons stated below, the court will GRANT in part and DENY in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss and will GRANT in part and DENY in part Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the court will GRANT in part and DENY in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss and will GRANT in part and DENY in part Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.
Disposition Granted in part The principal motion was granted in part and denied in part. Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the court will GRANT in part and DENY in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss and will GRANT in part and DENY in part Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the court will GRANT in part and DENY in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss and will GRANT in part and DENY in part Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.
The delay claim Relief ordered Read by a model
Therefore, the court will order Defendants to undertake good faith efforts to expeditiously process and adjudicate 2021 diversity visa applications and derivative beneficiary applications by September 30, 2021
The other claims Some dismissed, some go on Read by a model
The court will GRANT Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims regarding notice-and-comment rulemaking, the “mission critical” and “emergency” guidance, the national interest exception, and separation of powers and nondelegation doctrine.
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
In other words, while the national interest exception restarted the visa processing, it did nothing to alleviate the six-month backlog that built up while the suspension policy was in effect, and which continues to harm Plaintiffs.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the applicant
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the applicant
  • 3. Human health and welfarenot reached
  • 4. Competing prioritiesnot reached
  • 5. Interests prejudicednot reached
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
The September 30 deadline is specific and concrete, which “manifests Congress’s intent that the State Department undertake good-faith efforts” to adhere to it.
Threshold rulings Held moot; Mootness argument rejected Read by a model
But the court agrees with Defendants that the twenty-two Plaintiffs who have already had their 2021 diversity visa applications adjudicated do not present a live case or controversy.
212(f) proclamation Proclamation 9984 Read by a model
Plaintiffs claim that Defendants implemented a regional “No-Visa Policy” suspending the processing, adjudication, and issuance of diversity visas for persons subject to Proclamations 9984 and 10143.

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
RAI v. BIDENThis decision September 27, 2021 Tanya S. Chutkan Granted in part
RAI v. BIDENThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted October 25, 2021 Tanya S. Chutkan Granted, each side in part

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:21-cv-00863
Filed
March 30, 2021
Ended
August 23, 2022
Suit's filing to its end
511 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.