Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Isse v. Whitman

District of ColumbiaBeryl A. HowellDecided June 26, 2023No. 1:22-cv-03114

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
Defendants have identified no authority to suggest that the Secretary of State cannot direct consular officers within the State Department to issue a final decision more quickly on plaintiff’s visa application, so this argument is rejected.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
As of June 2023, plaintiff’s application for an immigrant visa to the United States appears to have been refused
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Following his interview at the Embassy, plaintiff was informed that his visa application was being placed in “administrative processing.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons given, defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants now move to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), or, in the alternative, for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On January 23, 2023, defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the reasons given, defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons given, defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the reasons given, defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.
Months pending 42 months from the application to the suit; 50.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
The last action taken on plaintiff’s visa application was his consular interview in Kenya in April 2019
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
The first and second TRAC factors weigh in defendants’ favor because the delay in adjudicating plaintiff’s visa application—around forty months—is not unreasonable.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Expediting review in plaintiff’s case “would merely pull government resources” away from other visa adjudications and agency business.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected Read by a model
Thus, no final decision has apparently been made, with the result that the doctrine of consular nonreviewability does not bar judicial review of plaintiff’s claims.
Nationality Somalia Read by a model
Plaintiff Sade Abdulkadir Isse, a citizen of Somalia currently residing in Kenya

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:22-cv-03114
Filed
October 13, 2022
Ended
June 26, 2023
Suit's filing to its end
256 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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.