Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Uru v. Rubio

District of ColumbiaPaul L. FriedmanDecided February 25, 2026No. 1:25-cv-02524

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
On March 5, 2025, the U.S. Consulate in Papua New Guinea, Port Moresby, issued an email revocation of Mr. Uru’s L-1 visa, citing Section 221(i) of the INA and stating that Mr. Uru “may be inadmissible and ineligible to receive a visa.”
Form or filing None named Read by a model
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
the government’s Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 9] is GRANTED and Mr. Uru’s Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [Dkt. No. 6] is DENIED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the government’s Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 9] is GRANTED and Mr. Uru’s Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [Dkt. No. 6] is DENIED.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
Pending before the Court are Mr. Uru’s emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and the government’s motion to dismiss Mr. Uru’s complaint.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
His complaint therefore must be dismissed.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the government’s Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 9] is GRANTED and Mr. Uru’s Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [Dkt. No. 6] is DENIED.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
His complaint therefore must be dismissed.
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 Papua New Guinea Read by a model
Plaintiff Olemo Uru is a national of Papua New Guinea

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-02524
Filed
August 4, 2025
Ended
February 27, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
207 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.