Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Younes v. U.S. Department of State

District of ColumbiaReggie B. WaltonDecided August 15, 2025No. 1:21-cv-00544

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
The decision to grant or deny a visa application rests with the consular officer adjudicating that particular application.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
“On May 21, 2019, [the p]laintiffs appeared at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon, for a nonimmigrant visa appointment before a consular officer.”
What the suit asked for Not recorded Read by a model
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that it must grant the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and deny the plaintiffs’ motion for summary declaratory judgment.
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
the Court concludes that it must grant the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and deny the plaintiffs’ motion for summary declaratory judgment.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
Currently pending before the Court are the defendants’ converted motion for summary judgment, see Defendants’ Second Motion to Dismiss (“Defs.’ Mot.”), ECF No. 29, 2 and the plaintiffs’ motion for summary declaratory judgment,
Disposition Granted in the government's favor The principal motion was granted in full: summary judgment for either side, an injunction or TRO, a writ or order to act, fees. A motion to dismiss granted in full counts as Dismissed; a transfer is listed apart. Read by a model
the Court concludes that it must grant the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and deny the plaintiffs’ motion for summary declaratory judgment.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
the Court concludes that it must grant the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and deny the plaintiffs’ motion for summary declaratory judgment.
The other claims Relief denied Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that it must grant the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and deny the plaintiffs’ motion for summary declaratory judgment.
Months pending 17 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
On October 19, 2020, the “[d]efendants refused [the p]laintiffs’ visas under section 212(a)(3)(B) of the INA and informed [the p]laintiffs of the refusal via email[.]”
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Lebanon Read by a model
The plaintiffs, Elias Abi Younes and Nicole Bardawil, are citizens of Lebanon

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:21-cv-00544
Filed
March 2, 2021
Ended
August 15, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
1,627 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.