Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Tolymbekova v. Rubio

District of ColumbiaZia M. FaruquiDecided September 5, 2025No. 1:25-cv-00295

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
Further, visa adjudication is an agency action the State Department is required to complete.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
On June 30, 2023, Plaintiff Dmitrii, his wife, and two children submitted the DS-260 immigrant visa application.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Since January 2024, Plaintiffs’ EB-1A visa applications have been in administrative processing. Plaintiffs now seek an order to compel Defendants and those acting under them to immediately issue a final decision on Plaintiffs’ visa applications.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will DENY Defendants’ motion to dismiss the case.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
On April 1, 2025, Defendant filed Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
In response, Defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss.
Disposition Government's motion denied; the case goes on The government's motion (to dismiss, or for summary judgment) was denied, so the case goes on. Counted as the applicant's ruling; a later decision in the case can still go either way. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will DENY Defendants’ motion to dismiss the case.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will DENY Defendants’ motion to dismiss the case.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will DENY Defendants’ motion to dismiss the case.
Months pending 12.3 months from the application to the suit; 19.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On January 23, 2024, Plaintiff Lyazat completed her visa interview. See id. ¶ 98. USCIS then placed her application into administrative processing under § 221(g).
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
We therefore conclude Plaintiffs’ § 221(g) determinations are not refusals within the meaning of 22 C.F.R. § 42.81(b) and thus are not final decisions to which the doctrine of consular nonreviewability applies.
Nationality Kazakhstan Read by a model
Plaintiff Lyazat, a citizen of Kazakhstan, holds a PhD in metallurgy

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-00295
Filed
January 31, 2025
Ended
September 22, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
599 days
How it ended
Ended, outcome not recorded
From the record
terminated; no disposition recorded

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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.