Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Indiana

LUMINA MATERIALS, LLC v. BLINKEN

Southern District of IndianaSarah Evans BarkerDecided March 13, 2026No. 4:24-cv-00141

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
Turning to the second factor, we assess whether Congress has prescribed specific deadlines for the Department of State to resolve visa applications that pend in administrative processing.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
On February 19, 2023, the Fedorovs filed Form DS-260 applications.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
On October 20, 2024, approximately ten months after Mr. Fedorov's visa application was refused for administrative processing, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit, seeking a court order compelling the Government to promptly adjudicate the Fedorovs's visa applications.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For these reasons, the Government's Motion to Dismiss is hereby DENIED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
we construe the Government's motion as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Now before the Court is the Government's Motion to Dismiss, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12.
Disposition Denied in the applicant's favor The principal motion was denied in full: a motion to dismiss denied so the case goes on, or relief denied on the merits. Read by a model
For these reasons, the Government's Motion to Dismiss is hereby DENIED.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
For these reasons, the Government's Motion to Dismiss is hereby DENIED.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Weighing the TRAC factors altogether, we hold that Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts, albeit barely, to plausibly state a claim for unreasonable agency delay.
The other claims The delay claim goes on Read by a model
we are not prepared to foreclose the possibility of relief under § 706(2) at this preliminary stage.
Months pending 20 months from the application to the suit; 36.7 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On February 19, 2023, the Fedorovs filed Form DS-260 applications.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the applicant
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the applicant
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the applicant
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
we find that the twenty-seven-month delay in the final adjudication of the Fedorovs's visa applications is sufficiently substantial to support their claims in this action.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping rejected Read by a model
which undermines the Government's contention that Plaintiffs' success in this lawsuit would necessarily prejudice other similarly-situated petitioners.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found Read by a model
Under these circumstances, we join the consensus among district courts in holding that the doctrine of consular nonreviewability does not foreclose the claims asserted by Plaintiffs here, involv- ing an alleged nonfinal disposition of their visa applications.
Nationality Russia Read by a model
Mr. Fedorov is a Russian citizen

How the case ended

Docket
No. 4:24-cv-00141
Filed
October 20, 2024
Ended
March 25, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
521 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
voluntary dismissal 2026-03-23; idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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 Seventh 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.