Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

SHUSHKOV v. BLINKEN

District of ColumbiaLoren L. AliKhanDecided August 18, 2025No. 1:24-cv-02265

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
Defendants—Marco Rubio, in his official capacity as Secretary of State, and Timothy W. Smith, in his official capacity as Director of the Office of Screening, Analysis, and Coordination (“SAC”) at the U.S. Department of State—to adjudicate his immigration visa application.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
In October 2023, Mr. Shushkov filed a DS-160 Application for Nonimmigrant Visa.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
After the interview, his visa was refused under Section 221(g) for further administrative processing, and he was informed that he would need to submit additional documentation.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 5, is DENIED as to Counts II and IV and GRANTED as to Counts I and III.
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 Mr. Shushkov’s claim under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants have moved to dismiss Mr. Shushkov’s claim under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
the court determines that Mr. Shushkov may proceed on Counts II and IV of his complaint.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
the court determines that Mr. Shushkov may proceed on Counts II and IV of his complaint.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
the court determines that Mr. Shushkov may proceed on Counts II and IV of his complaint.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
the court will dismiss Mr. Shushkov’s claims that are premised on Section 706(2) of the APA (Counts I and III)
Months pending 10 months from the application to the suit; 22.1 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
In October 2023, Mr. Shushkov filed a DS-160 Application for Nonimmigrant Visa.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found Read by a model
Accordingly, the case is not barred by the doctrine of consular nonreviewability.
Nationality Russia Read by a model
Plaintiff Artem Shushkov, a Russian national residing in Serbia

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-02265
Filed
August 1, 2024
Ended
September 30, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
425 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
stipulated dismissal 2025-09-29; 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.