Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Lu v. Tillerson

District of ColumbiaJames E. BoasbergDecided February 15, 2018No. 1:17-cv-01028

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
Lu then brought this suit alleging that this 2015 visa deprivation was based on unreasonable delays on the part of the State Department, as well as on other unconnected events.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Lu submitted his DS-260, but never received notification of an interview.
What the suit asked for Schedule an interview Read by a model
As relief, Plaintiff asked this Court to compel Defendant Secretary of State to extend the time for a visa interview for his 2015 application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
As the case is indeed moot, the Court will dismiss it.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
In December 2017, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), to which Lu filed an opposition in January.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
In December 2017, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), to which Lu filed an opposition in January.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
the Court concludes that his claims for injunctive and mandatory relief are moot.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
the Court concludes that his claims for injunctive and mandatory relief are moot.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
the Court concludes that his claims for injunctive and mandatory relief are moot.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
The Court must therefore also dismiss his money-damages claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Months pending 30.8 months from the application to the suit The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
the record suggests that it was in fact submitted on October 30, 2014.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Because any further steps that Defendant might take to process Lu’s application are therefore futile, the Court concludes that his claims for injunctive and mandatory relief are moot.
Nationality Taiwan Read by a model
Plaintiff Yung-Kai Lu, proceeding pro se, is a citizen and resident of Taiwan.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:17-cv-01028
Filed
May 24, 2017
Ended
February 15, 2018
Suit's filing to its end
267 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. 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.