Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Ramazanova v. Rubio

District of ColumbiaDabney L. FriedrichDecided March 23, 2026No. 1:25-cv-01433

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
Their opposition to the defendants’ motion to dismiss similarly focuses on the Department of State defendants, arguing that Ramazanova and Wright’s alleged injuries “are directly traceable to the State Department’s failure to conclude the adjudication of [Ramazanova’s] visa application.”
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
22 C.F.R. § 42.81(a), which applies to immigrant visa applications, may be more relevant to their claims.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Ramazanova and Wright seek to compel the defendants to adjudicate Ramazanova’s visa application under both the Mandamus Act and § 706(1) of the APA.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 8, 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 have moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
As to the remaining defendants, the plaintiffs’ Mandamus Act claim is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), and the plaintiffs’ Administrative Procedure Act claim is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 8, is granted.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
As to the remaining defendants, the plaintiffs’ Mandamus Act claim is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), and the plaintiffs’ Administrative Procedure Act claim is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Months pending 17.7 months from the application to the suit; 28.1 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Ramazanova submitted further paperwork and, on November 20, 2023, attended a visa interview.
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
As the Court agrees that Ramazanova and Wright have not identified a clear non-discretionary duty that the defendants must fulfill for an already-refused visa application
Nationality Turkmenistan Read by a model
Ramazanova, a national of the Republic of Turkmenistan

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-01433
Filed
May 12, 2025
Ended
March 23, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
315 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
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 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.