Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Vokhobov v. Blinken

District of ColumbiaRudolph ContrerasDecided September 24, 2022No. 1:22-cv-02128

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 Department has unlawfully withheld and unreasonably delayed visa adjudication from plaintiffs under the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(1).
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
which allowed selectees to submit only a form DS-260 immigrant visa
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
This harm could be redressed by a court order that the Department must adjudicate Plaintiffs’ applications and preserve unused visas for that purpose if those adjudications are not complete by September 30, 2022.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDERS
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order in each case is DENIED.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order in each case is DENIED.
Disposition Denied in the government's favor The principal motion was denied in full: a motion to dismiss denied so the case goes on, or relief denied on the merits. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order in each case is DENIED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order in each case is DENIED.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order in each case is DENIED.
The other claims Relief denied Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order in each case is DENIED.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablenot reached
  • 3. Human health and welfarenot reached
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicednot reached
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
This is dubious at best with respect to TRAC factor one in particular.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
This is dubious at best with respect to TRAC factor one in particular. According to the affidavit of Defendant Morgan Miles, KCC creates the scheduling order using an applicant’s regional rank order and the date of the visa number allocation.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:22-cv-02128
Filed
July 19, 2022
Ended
October 24, 2022
Suit's filing to its end
97 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
voluntary dismissal 2022-10-10; 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.