Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

P.K. v. Tillerson

District of ColumbiaTanya S. ChutkanDecided September 29, 2017No. 1:17-cv-01533

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
Accordingly, Plaintiffs ask this court to issue an order: (1) enjoining the State Department from implementing the policy set forth in its cable; and (2) requiring consular officers to process Plaintiffs’ applications pursuant to the statute.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
DV applicants who are not exempt from the [Executive Order]’s suspension of entry provision and who do not qualify for a waiver should be refused [pursuant to] 221(g) [of the INA]
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
process the diversity visas of and/or issue diversity visas to eligible applicants who had previously been refused under the Executive Order under the program for FY 2017
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and emergency mandamus relief is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
Before this court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Emergency Motion for Mandamus Relief.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Before this court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Emergency Motion for Mandamus Relief.
Disposition Granted in part The principal motion was granted in part and denied in part. Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and emergency mandamus relief is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and emergency mandamus relief is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
The delay claim Relief ordered Read by a model
Accordingly, Defendants are ordered to (1) reserve any unused visa numbers for FY 2017 for processing following the Supreme Court’s decision (should the Court rule in Plaintiffs’ favor); and (2) report any unused visa numbers to the court by October 15.
The other claims Relief denied Read by a model
Until the Supreme Court rules on the legality of the Executive Order, this court must abide by the Supreme Court’s order, and therefore Plaintiffs’ request for relief is denied.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
The government's delay arguments Visa availability rejected Read by a model
The possibility that the State Department has reached the statutory visa cap because it has already allotted all of the visa numbers does not necessarily render Plaintiffs’ case moot.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Mootness argument rejected Read by a model
Instead, Plaintiffs challenge the legality of the State Department’s policy of applying the Executive Order to the issuance of diversity visas, and thus the doctrine of consular non-reviewability bars neither their claims nor the relief they seek.
Nationality Yemen Read by a model
Plaintiffs—citizens of Yemen and Iran—
212(f) proclamation Proclamation 13780 Read by a model
Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, Exec. Order No. 13780, 82 Fed. Reg. 13209, 13213 (2017).

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:17-cv-01533
Filed
August 3, 2017
Ended
March 27, 2018
Suit's filing to its end
236 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.