Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Missouri

Sotnikov v. Department of Homeland Security

Eastern District of MissouriStephen R. ClarkDecided August 20, 2025No. 4:24-cv-00902

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 USCIS Read by a model
The USCIS denied his application, explaining that Sotnikov “did not meet the statutory requirements of eligibility for derivative citizenship under Section 320 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1431.”
Form or filing N-600 (certificate of citizenship) Read by a model
In July 2022, Sotnikov filed an application for a United States citizenship certificate.
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
Now—two decades later, while he’s still in Russia—Sotnikova and Sotnikov seek an order compelling Defendants to issue Sotnikov a certificate of United States citizenship.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For these reasons, the Court grants Defendants’ [9] Motion to Dismiss.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss all claims under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
For these reasons, the Court grants Defendants’ [9] Motion to Dismiss.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For these reasons, the Court grants Defendants’ [9] Motion to Dismiss. A separate order of dismissal accompanies this order.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For these reasons, the Court grants Defendants’ [9] Motion to Dismiss. A separate order of dismissal accompanies this order.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Thus, the Court holds that it lacks the power to grant the relief Sotnikova and Sotnikov seek for their APA and mandamus claims and therefore dismisses those claims.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
For these reasons, the Court grants Defendants’ [9] Motion to Dismiss. A separate order of dismissal accompanies this order.
Months pending 37.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
In July 2022, Sotnikov filed an application for a United States citizenship certificate.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Russia Read by a model
In August 1995, the United States admitted Sotnikova, her husband, and Sotnikov into the United States as Russian refugees.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 4:24-cv-00902
Filed
June 28, 2024
Ended
August 20, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
418 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2025-08-20 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 Eighth 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.