Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Vo Van Chau v. United States Department of State

District of ColumbiaFriedmanDecided June 29, 1995

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
In April 1993, however, the United States Department of State changed its policy and directed the U.S. Consulate in Hong Kong to cease processing visa applications of this class of screened-out Vietnamese.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
the immigrant visa application of Le Thi Thanh Xuan
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs also seek relief in the nature of mandamus against the Department, requiring the Department to process Mrs. Le's visa application at the U.S. Consulate in Hong Kong.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court grants plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.
Disposition Granted in the applicant's favor The principal motion was granted in full: summary judgment for either side, an injunction or TRO, a writ or order to act, fees. A motion to dismiss granted in full counts as Dismissed; a transfer is listed apart. Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court grants plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court grants plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.
The delay claim Relief ordered Read by a model
are hereby enjoined and directed to process forthwith the immigrant visa application of Le Thi Thanh Xuan at the United States Consulate in Hong Kong
The other claims Relief ordered Read by a model
Defendants, their agents, employees, and successors in office are hereby enjoined from implementing their decision to refuse processing of the immigrant visa application of Le Thi Thanh Xuan at the United States Consulate in Hong Kong
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Vietnam Read by a model
His wife, plaintiff Le Thi Thanh Xuan ("Mrs. Le"), is a screened-out Vietnamese immigrant
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Plaintiff Vo Van Chau ("Mr. Vo") is an American citizen living in the United States. His wife, plaintiff Le Thi Thanh Xuan ("Mrs. Le"), is a screened-out Vietnamese immigrant currently detained at High Island, a Hong Kong detention center.

How the case ended

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

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.