Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Liu v. Garland

District of ColumbiaReggie B. WaltonDecided August 23, 2024No. 1:23-cv-01914

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
Thus, because the Department of State officials “could play a role in the pace of visa adjudications, an order from [the Court] directing [them] to move quickly would likely redress [the p]laintiffs’ harms.”
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
[o]n April 17, 2023, [the plaintiffs allegedly] attended [their] visa interview[s] at the U.S. Consulate in Calgary, Canada[,]” and at the “conclusion of [their] interview[s] [their respective consular officers allegedly] gave [them] a 221(g)-refusal notice[.]
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
“But [the p]laintiffs do not seek to have [their] visa adjudication revised; rather, they seek to have the adjudication completed.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that it must grant 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
Currently pending before the Court is the defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Currently pending before the Court is the defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to 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
Accordingly, although the Court is not unsympathetic to the plaintiffs’ situation, the Court must grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ APA and Mandamus Act claims.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that it must grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
the Court must grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ APA and Mandamus Act claims.
Months pending 2.5 months from the application to the suit; 16.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
[o]n April 17, 2023, [the plaintiffs allegedly] attended [their] visa interview[s] at the U.S. Consulate in Calgary, Canada[,]
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 neededfavors the government
Read by a model
In other words, the first two factors, considered together, favor the defendants.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
But this argument ignores that a court order directing [the defendants] to process [the plaintiffs’] application would still put [them] ahead in the queue of those similarly situated.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality China Read by a model
citizens of China who have long studied and worked in the United States in lawful nonimmigrant status.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-01914
Filed
July 1, 2023
Ended
August 23, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
419 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.