Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Pietersen v. US Department of State

District of ColumbiaDabney L. FriedrichDecided March 21, 2024No. 1:22-cv-03544

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
They seek, among other things, an order from this Court vacating the K-1 visa denials and directing the State Department to readjudicate Pietersen’s visa application.
Form or filing DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
After several unsuccessful attempts to enter the United States, Pietersen twice applied for a K-1 nonimmigrant visa.
What the suit asked for Not recorded Read by a model
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Before the Court is the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Because the doctrine of consular nonreviewability bars the plaintiffs’ claims, the Court will dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Because the doctrine of consular nonreviewability bars the plaintiffs’ claims, the Court will dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability applied Read by a model
Although Brown has standing, the doctrine of consular nonreviewability bars the plaintiffs’ claims.
Nationality Netherlands Read by a model
Judith Jeltsje Pietersen is a citizen of Netherlands.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:22-cv-03544
Filed
November 21, 2022
Ended
March 22, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
487 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant

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.