Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Colorado

Jung v. Goldman

District of ColoradoSusan ProseDecided September 19, 2025No. 1:24-cv-02500

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 same day, Plaintiff’s fiancée was informed that the State Department had refused her application under 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g)
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
The impetus for this litigation is the pursuit of a “K-1 visa,” which allows the fiancé or fiancée of a citizen of the United States to travel to this country to marry his or her U.S. citizen sponsor within ninety days of arrival.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
requests only that the Court order final adjudication of the visa application, including administrative processing, within a reasonable time.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Complaint for Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED;
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Complaint for Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED;
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Complaint for Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED;
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction;
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction;
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction;
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Thus, because Mr. Jung has not identified a legally-protected interest sufficient to support a due-process claim, it too fails for lack of standing.
Months pending 4.1 months from the application to the suit; 16.3 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
That interview occurred at the U.S. embassy in Turkey on May 10, 2024.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Mootness argument rejected; No duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal Read by a model
the court respectfully disagrees with the State Department that mootness is the relevant jurisdictional principle—where there has been no “intervening circumstance” since the visa application was refused.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-02500
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 20)
Filed
September 11, 2024
Ended
September 19, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
373 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2025-09-19 dismisses for want of jurisdiction

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 Tenth 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.