Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Pennsylvania

DENISOVA v. MAYORKAS

Western District of PennsylvaniaMark R. HornakDecided May 8, 2024No. 2:23-cv-01902

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,996 written decisions from 2,731 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided November 12, 2026. Updated November 14, 2026 at 1:17 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 1,617 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,406 (87%), 1,039 of them in this group, measured November 14, 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
While the Department of State has discretion with respect to whether to grant or deny a visa application, it has a nondiscretionary duty to decide the application.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
seeking relief in the form of this Court’s issuance of a writ of mandamus to compel a final decision on Mr. Denisov’s application for an immigrant visa.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
On September 26, 2023, the Almaty Consulate responded to one of Mr. Denisov’s emails by stating that his application was “still going through administrative processing.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons that follow, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants have moved to dismiss the action in full and with prejudice, arguing both that the case is barred as a matter of law for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and that Plaintiffs fail to state a claim
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants have moved to dismiss the action in full and with prejudice
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
Here, Mr. Denisov’s visa application was refused at his interview at the Almaty consulate on May 23, 2023, thus mooting the case.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
Here, Mr. Denisov’s visa application was refused at his interview at the Almaty consulate on May 23, 2023, thus mooting the case.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Here, Mr. Denisov’s visa application was refused at his interview at the Almaty consulate on May 23, 2023, thus mooting the case.
The other claims Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ claims have been rendered moot by the denial of Mr. Denisov’s visa application
Months pending 5.4 months from the application to the suit; 0 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
Here, Mr. Denisov’s visa application was refused at his interview at the Almaty consulate on May 23, 2023, thus mooting the case.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Were the Court to find the alleged delay unreasonable, such a finding could result in Mr. Denisov being moved up the line in front of hundreds of families that have been waiting far longer.
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected; Consular nonreviewability rejected; Held moot Read by a model
In the instant case, “neither the discretionary authority to determine the pace of application processing nor the discretionary authority to withhold adjustment applications” has been so specified.
Nationality Russia Read by a model
Oleg Denisov, her father and a Russian national
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Plaintiffs Natalia Denisova, a United States citizen, and Oleg Denisov, her father and a Russian national

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:23-cv-01902
Filed
November 2, 2023
Ended
May 8, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
188 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
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.

Supreme Court and Third 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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.