Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Sharov v. Rubio

District of ColumbiaMoxila A. UpadhyayaDecided March 18, 2026No. 1:25-cv-01930

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
Indeed, any order compelling a consular officer to make a final decision on Plaintiffs’ applications would also require the NVC to complete its vetting.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiffs are Russian citizens seeking to enter the United States on nonimmigrant visas.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
After the interview, the officer refused Plaintiffs’ applications under Section 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g), and placed the applications in administrative processing (the “221(g) Refusal”).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 7, is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
The Government moves to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The Government moves to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (b)(6).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 7, is GRANTED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 7, is GRANTED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
After careful review of the record and relevant authorities, the Court finds Defendants’ final argument persuasive and holds that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) that the delay is unreasonable.
Months pending 9.3 months from the application to the suit; 18.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiffs interviewed with a consular officer at the United States embassy in Prague, Czech Republic, on September 9, 2024.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfareneutral
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedneutral
  • 6. No impropriety neededfavors the government
Read by a model
TRAC Factors One and Two Weigh in Favor of the Defendants.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Regardless of whether a queue exists, any order from this Court requiring Defendants to speed up processing Plaintiffs’ visa applications would effectively require Defendants to reorder their priorities, which this Circuit strongly disfavors.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found Read by a model
the consular nonreviewability doctrine applies only to final decisions and thus does not bar judicial review of a consular officer’s delay when a visa application has been provisionally refused pending a final decision.
Nationality Russia Read by a model
Plaintiffs are Russian citizens seeking to enter the United States on nonimmigrant visas.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-01930
Filed
June 19, 2025
Ended
March 19, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
273 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2026-03-18 for the defendants, ground not stated; 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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.