Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Saraev v. Rubio

District of ColumbiaZia M. FaruquiDecided December 2, 2025No. 1:25-cv-01740

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
On July 30, 2024, a consular officer at the Embassy interviewed Plaintiffs and informed them that their application required further administrative processing under Section 221(g) of the INA.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiffs seek an order to compel Defendants to immediately and forthwith take all appropriate action to issue final decisions on Plaintiffs’ immigrant visa applications.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
On July 30, 2024, a consular officer at the Embassy interviewed Plaintiffs and informed them that their application required further administrative processing under Section 221(g) of the INA.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons set forth herein, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
On August 4, 2025, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Procedure Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
In response, Defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
In response, Defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss. See Motion to Dismiss (“Defs.’ Mot. Dismiss”) 1–23, ECF No. 8. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons set forth herein, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
In response, Defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss. See Motion to Dismiss (“Defs.’ Mot. Dismiss”) 1–23, ECF No. 8. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion.
Months pending 10.1 months from the application to the suit; 16.1 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On July 30, 2024, a consular officer at the Embassy interviewed Plaintiffs and informed them that their application required further administrative processing under Section 221(g) of the INA.
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 prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
Accordingly, the first and second TRAC factors favors Defendants.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Following other courts, this Court will not engage in judicial reordering by allowing Plaintiffs to skip the line.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found Read by a model
Defendants claim that the doctrine of consular nonreviewability bars Plaintiffs’ claims since the State Department refused Plaintiffs’ applications under § 221(g). See Defs.’ Mot. Dismiss at 12–15. Defendants are incorrect. This was not a final decision.
Nationality Russia Read by a model
Plaintiff Saraev, a citizen of Russia, is a highly skilled software engineer.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-01740
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 11), deciding the motion (ECF 8)
Filed
June 2, 2025
Ended
December 2, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
183 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.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision, and the motion number is read from that entry's text. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

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.