Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Datta v. Blinken

District of ColumbiaDecided March 10, 2025No. 1:24-cv-02937

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,996 written decisions from 2,731 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided November 12, 2026. Updated November 14, 2026 at 1:17 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 1,617 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,406 (87%), 1,039 of them in this group, measured November 14, 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 officer ultimately refused Mr. Datta’s application and placed it in “administrative processing.”
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
On November 6, 2023, Plaintiff Shuvo Jit Datta, a national of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, submitted an Online Nonimmigrant Visa Application (Form DS-160) with the U.S. Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
In this case, however, defendants already have taken definitive action, and plaintiff is effectively asking the Court to order defendants to “engage in discretionary re-adjudication of that action more quickly.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For these reasons, 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
Pending before the Court is defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Pending before the Court is defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 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
the Court grants defendants’ motion and dismisses the complaint.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For these reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The complaint is dismissed as to the remaining defendants under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Months pending 11.4 months from the application to the suit; 16.1 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On November 6, 2023, plaintiff submitted a Form DS-160 to the U.S. Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
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 government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesnot reached
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
Judges in this Circuit have held, however, that visa adjudication delays in the vicinity of five years are not unreasonable under the first and second TRAC factors.
Threshold rulings No duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal Read by a model
The Court thus finds that plaintiff has failed to identify a clear, non-discretionary duty requiring defendants to further adjudicate his already-refused visa application.
Nationality Bangladesh Read by a model
Plaintiff Shuvo Jit Datta, a national of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-02937
Filed
October 17, 2024
Ended
March 21, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
155 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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.