Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Texas

Kulagin v. Blinken

Western District of TexasAlan D AlbrightDecided April 28, 2025No. 1:24-cv-00953

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
On September 25, 2023, Plaintiffs were interviewed by a consular officer at the U.S. Embassy in Belgrade, Serbia.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
In September of 2023, Plaintiffs filed their DS-160 Online Nonimmigrant Visa Applications and completed all necessary steps to obtain their H-1B and H-4 visas.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Specifically, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants have a nondiscretionary duty to review and adjudicate visa applications under 1202(d) of the INA.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 8) and ORDERS that this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Subsequently, Defendants filed their motion to dismiss, arguing that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiffs’ claims are moot.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 8).
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ claims are moot, and the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ claims are moot, and the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ claims are moot, and the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
Months pending 11.1 months from the application to the suit; 0.3 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
On September 25, 2023, Plaintiffs were interviewed by a consular officer at the U.S. Embassy in Belgrade, Serbia. Id. at ¶ 30. At the end of the interview “they were given a [Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”)] 221(g)-refusal notice
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ claims are moot, and the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-00953
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 22)
Filed
August 19, 2024
Ended
April 28, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
252 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 3 (dismissed: lack of jurisdiction)

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why. Other suits in this court.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

Supreme Court and Fifth 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.