Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Dey v. Blinken

District of ColumbiaAmir H. AliDecided August 11, 2025No. 1:24-cv-00944

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
Dey does not connect the dots between an official tasked with providing legal advice and consular officers taking action on a visa application.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Nilay Kumar Dey brings this action under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and the Mandamus Act to compel various government officials to schedule a consular interview and adjudicate his and his family’s immigrant visa applications.
What the suit asked for Schedule an interview Read by a model
Nilay Kumar Dey brings this action under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and the Mandamus Act to compel various government officials to schedule a consular interview and adjudicate his and his family’s immigrant visa applications.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For these reasons, the defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted and this action is dismissed without prejudice.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
The defendants move to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The defendants move to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For these reasons, the defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted and this action is dismissed without prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For these reasons, the defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted and this action is dismissed without prejudice.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For these reasons, the defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted and this action is dismissed without prejudice.
Months pending 19 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Dey had been waiting for his consular interview for close to nineteen months when he brought this action in April 2024.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
It has not reached the “level of disproportionality” necessary to tip these two factors in his favor.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Because the relief sought entails bumping others who are ahead in the queue, factor four favors the defendants.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-00944
Filed
April 2, 2024
Ended
August 12, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
497 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2025-08-11 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.