Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Diabin v. Mangis

District of ColumbiaJohn D. BatesDecided July 2, 2025No. 1:24-cv-03374

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
Frustrated with the uncertainty hanging over his family, Diabina’s husband—Evgenii Diabin—asks this Court to compel State Department officials to act on his wife’s application.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
But the officer told Alina Diabina that her visa application had been refused, pending administrative processing and her submission of her curriculum vitae and additional answers to questions.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
In December 2024, after Diabina’s application had been in administrative processing for eight months, Diabin filed this lawsuit, arguing that his wife’s application has been unreasonably delayed and asking the Court to compel State Department officials to act on it.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that the defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
The defendants seek dismissal under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that the defendants’ 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
It is further ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that the defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that the defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
So the Court will dismiss Diabin’s constitutional claim.
Months pending 17.1 months from the application to the suit; 23.6 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Once safe in Cyprus, the Diabin family initiated the immigrant visa application process in July 2023.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the applicant
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
The first factor bolsters the defendants’ position.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
As for the fourth factor, granting Diabin relief would entail fast-tracking one agency action ahead of actions of higher or competing priority.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found Read by a model
II. The consular nonreviewability doctrine does not bar judicial review here.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-03374
Filed
December 3, 2024
Ended
July 7, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
216 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.