Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Oklahoma

Motian v. United States Department of State

Western District of OklahomaDavid L. RussellDecided February 23, 2026No. 5:25-cv-00814

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
The consular office has discharged its duty to adjudicate the visa application by issuing a refusal and as a result, there 1s no live case or controversy.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiff1 seeks to compel a final adjudication of his wife’s immigrant visa application.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Plaintiff seeks to compel the agency to render a decision on the visa application, but subsequent factual developments show that a decision has already been rendered.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 30] is GRANTED and this action is dismissed without prejudice.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 30] is GRANTED and this action is dismissed without prejudice.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 30]
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
the Court finds that the motion should be granted and the claims dismissed as moot.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
the Court finds that the motion should be granted and the claims dismissed as moot.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
the Court finds that the motion should be granted and the claims dismissed as moot.
Months pending 33.7 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
on December 30, 2025, notified Plaintiff that the visa application “was refused under INA §221(g) and returned to the National Visa Center with a request for revocation.”
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
The consular office has discharged its duty to adjudicate the visa application by issuing a refusal and as a result, there 1s no live case or controversy. Plaintiffs claims are therefore moot.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that he is a U.S. citizen seeking an immigrant visa for his wife, a citizen of Iran.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that he is a U.S. citizen seeking an immigrant visa for his wife, a citizen of Iran.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 5:25-cv-00814
Filed
July 22, 2025
Ended
February 23, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
216 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
order 2026-02-23 for the defendants, ground not stated

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 Tenth 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.