Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Smirnov v. Clinton

District of ColumbiaAmy Berman JacksonDecided July 14, 2011No. 1:11-cv-01126

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
In Count I, plaintiffs seek mandamus and declaratory relief requiring the Department of State to treat their lottery petitions as approved and to process their visa applications in accordance with the statute and the regulations.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
they will lose a significant opportunity to receive an immigrant visa if the defendants are permitted not to process their immigrant visa petitions and/or treat them as void.
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
they filed this action and a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the defendants from voiding the results of the first lottery and conducting another.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the Court will deny plaintiffs’ claims for relief and dismiss the complaint.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
the parties agreed to consolidate the hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction with a determination on the merits under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a)(2).
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ Application for Preliminary Injunction
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the following reasons, then, the Court will deny plaintiffs’ claims for relief and dismiss the complaint.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the following reasons, then, the Court will deny plaintiffs’ claims for relief and dismiss the complaint.
The other claims Relief denied Read by a model
For the following reasons, then, the Court will deny plaintiffs’ claims for relief and dismiss the complaint
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:11-cv-01126
Filed
June 16, 2011
Ended
July 14, 2011
Suit's filing to its end
28 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.

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.