Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

THEIN v. TRUMP

District of ColumbiaSparkle L. SooknananDecided August 21, 2025No. 1:25-cv-02369

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
First, the Secretary of State shall undertake good-faith efforts, directly and through his designees, to expeditiously process and adjudicate the Plaintiffs’ applications that are currently in administrative processing by September 30, 2025.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants have either failed to adjudicate their diversity visa applications or unlawfully refused them because of a Presidential Proclamation that suspends entry into the United States by individuals from their home countries.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
First, the Secretary of State shall undertake good-faith efforts, directly and through his designees, to expeditiously process and adjudicate the Plaintiffs’ applications that are currently in administrative processing by September 30, 2025.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The Court grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs’ motion.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the Plaintiffs’ CONCLUSION Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 11. A separate order will issue.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
On July 31, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
Disposition Granted in part The principal motion was granted in part and denied in part. Read by a model
The Court grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs’ motion.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
The Court grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs’ motion.
The delay claim Relief ordered Read by a model
First, the Secretary of State shall undertake good-faith efforts, directly and through his designees, to expeditiously process and adjudicate the Plaintiffs’ applications that are currently in administrative processing by September 30, 2025.
The other claims Some dismissed, some go on Read by a model
The Court grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs’ motion.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability applied; Consular nonreviewability rejected; Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found Read by a model
Just in describing the doctrine, it is immediately clear that it forbids the relief sought by the Denied Plaintiffs, despite the Plaintiffs’ inexplicable protests at oral argument.
Nationality Afghanistan Read by a model
The Plaintiffs in this case are 102 nationals of Afghanistan, Burma, Togo, Somalia, and Iran
212(f) proclamation Proclamation 10949 Read by a model
Some of those Plaintiffs received an email informing them that a consular officer had found them “ineligible for an immigrant visa under Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, pursuant to” Proclamation 10949.

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
THEIN v. TRUMPThis decision August 21, 2025 Sparkle L. Sooknanan Granted in part
THEIN v. TRUMPThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted January 23, 2026 Sparkle L. Sooknanan Dismissed

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-02369
Filed
July 22, 2025
Ended
January 29, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
191 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant

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.