Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Virginia
Patrick v. Blinken
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
On the other hand, Plaintiffs allege that the State Department has a duty to adjudicate their visas, and that this duty has not been fulfilled. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa)
Read by a model
On February 14, 2024, she submitted her required Form DS-160. |
| What the suit asked for |
Finish 221(g) processing
Read by a model
In reliance on these allegations, Plaintiffs plead one claim for relief: that delay in the adjudication of Volkova’s visa application violates the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (Dkt. 11) is GRANTED. |
| Motion decided |
Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction
Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (Dkt. 11) is GRANTED. |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, For Summary Judgment |
| 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 for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (Dkt. 11) is GRANTED. |
| Prevailing party |
Government
Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (Dkt. 11) is GRANTED. |
| The delay claim |
Dismissed
Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (Dkt. 11) is GRANTED. |
| Months pending |
10.8 months from the application to the suit; 24.6 months from the application to the court's decision
Read by a model
On February 14, 2024, she submitted her required Form DS-160. |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings |
No duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal
Read by a model
After a refusal, such as a Section 221(g) refusal for administrative processing, has been made, no further discrete action is required under the INA, 22 C.F.R. § 41.121(a) or § 42.81, or any other pertinent statute or regulation. |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 1:25-cv-00043
- Filed
- January 9, 2025
- Ended
- March 4, 2026
- Suit's filing to its end
- 419 days
- How it ended
- Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
- From the record
- idb disp 3 (dismissed: lack 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.
Supreme Court and Fourth 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.
-
Department of State v. Muñoz, 602 U.S. 899
Supreme Court, June 21, 2024. A U.S. citizen has no fundamental liberty interest in a noncitizen spouse's admission, so marriage alone entitles the citizen neither to Mandel review of the consular refusal nor to an explanation beyond the statutory citation.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. 667
Supreme Court, June 26, 2018. Mandel's facially-legitimate-and-bona-fide standard governs constitutional challenges to entry restrictions, and a citation to a valid statutory ground ordinarily satisfies it.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753
Supreme Court, June 29, 1972. When a visa refusal burdens a U.S. citizen's own constitutional rights, courts ask only whether the Executive gave a facially legitimate and bona fide reason and do not look behind it.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55
Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Sesay v. United States, 984 F.3d 312
Fourth Circuit, January 5, 2021. Consular nonreviewability bars review of a relative's visa refusal; under Din and Trump v. Hawaii a valid statutory citation satisfies Mandel, and the court will not look behind it absent a particularized showing of bad faith.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 4 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-10-30; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
-
Gonzalez v. Cuccinelli, 985 F.3d 357
Fourth Circuit, January 14, 2021. Courts may review delay in placing U-visa petitioners on the waitlist under the TRAC factors and should not dismiss such claims at the pleading stage, but lack jurisdiction over delay in pre-waitlist work-permit requests, a point on which the Sixth Circuit disagrees.
ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Rejected in the Sixth Circuit by Barrios Garcia v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 25 F.4th 430 (2022).
-
Lovo v. Miller, 107 F.4th 199
Fourth Circuit, July 3, 2024. The 'decision or action' language of § 1182(a)(9)(B)(v), which the court treated as coextensive with § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), does not reach USCIS inaction, so a district court may hear a claim that USCIS unreasonably delayed a provisional unlawful-presence waiver.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 5 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-10-29; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.