Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Pennsylvania

BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC. v. BLINKEN

Eastern District of PennsylvaniaMICHAEL M. BAYLSONDecided March 19, 2025No. 2:24-cv-05919

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
Plaintiffs Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. (“Bimbo”) and Valerii Khadikov (together, “Plaintiffs”) allege that Mr. Khadikov has been waiting since September 6, 2023 for the United States Embassy in Yerevan, Armenia, to render a decision on his nonimmigrant visa application.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
Mr. Khadikov’s nonimmigrant visa application
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
an order compelling Defendant to complete processing of Mr. Khadikov’s nonimmigrant visa application, for himself and his family, within thirty days.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Government’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. The Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
The Government, however, offers two key pieces of additional evidence to support its Rule 12(b)(1) Motion.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Government’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Government’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. The Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Government’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. The Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case, and both counts of the Complaint must be dismissed.
Months pending 14 months from the application to the suit; 18.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
The Complaint alleges that on September 6, 2023, Mr. Khadikov and his family appeared for a visa interview at the United States Embassy in Yerevan, Armenia, as part of Mr. Khadikov’s nonimmigrant visa application.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; No duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal Read by a model
Because the Embassy has a nondiscretionary duty to issue or refuse to issue a visa, see infra, consular nonreviewability does not bar a challenge to the agency’s delay in discharging its mandatory duty.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:24-cv-05919
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 18)
Filed
November 5, 2024
Ended
March 19, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
134 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2025-03-19 dismisses for want of jurisdiction; 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. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

Supreme Court and Third 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.