Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Dalmar v. Blinken

District of ColumbiaDabney L. FriedrichDecided August 26, 2024No. 1:23-cv-03315

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
Plaintiffs filed this action on November 5, 2023, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to compel the State Department to adjudicate their cases under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706, and the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Defendants argue the plaintiffs lack subject-matter jurisdiction because they already obtained the relief requested in their petition: a final adjudication of their immigrant visa applications.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
The complaint plainly alleges the plaintiffs received “temporary 221(g) refusal notices” and their visa applications remain in administrative processing without a final decision.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the following reasons, the Court will grant the defendants’ motion and dismiss the petition.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
The defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to state a claim and lack of jurisdiction under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
Before the Court is the defendants’ motion to dismiss under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (12)(b)(6) and the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration.
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 Court grants the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 7, and denies the plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration, Dkt. 10, as moot.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court concludes that the plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for unreasonable delay under the APA and are not entitled to mandamus relief.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Although the Court rejects the defendants’ threshold arguments, it concludes that the plaintiffs’ APA and mandamus claims for unreasonable delay fail to state a claim.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 7, and denies the plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration, Dkt. 10, as moot.
Months pending 3.7 months from the application to the suit; 13.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
After those petitions were approved, the beneficiary spouses completed consular interviews in July to September of 2023.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
Both of these factors favor defendants.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
To grant the plaintiffs’ request for relief “would simply reorder a queue of applicants seeking adjudication.”
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Mootness argument rejected Read by a model
The Court also rejects the defendants’ argument that the doctrine of consular nonreviewability bars the plaintiffs’ suit.
Nationality Somalia Read by a model
Five United States citizens filed Form I-130 Petitions for Alien Relative on behalf of their Somalian spouses.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Five United States citizens filed Form I-130 Petitions for Alien Relative on behalf of their Somalian spouses.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-03315
Filed
November 5, 2023
Ended
August 26, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
295 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. 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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.