Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Walker v. Holder

District of ColumbiaColleen Kollar-KotellyDecided May 27, 2010

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
District Judge Richard W. Roberts concluded that the responsibility lies with the Director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), a component of Homeland Security.
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
to exercise his “right” to renounce his United States citizenship under 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a)(6).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) therefore is granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
move to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) therefore is granted.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) therefore is granted.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) therefore is granted.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
In the absence of a request obligating the defendant agencies to act, the Court finds that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under the APA, the mandamus statute or the Declaratory Judgment Act.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) therefore is granted.
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 United States Read by a model
to renounce his United States citizenship under 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a)(6).

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.