Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Colorado

Sundlof v. National Visa Center, U.S Department of State

District of ColoradoKathryn A. StarnellaDecided January 26, 2026No. 1:25-cv-01902

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,996 written decisions from 2,731 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided November 12, 2026. Updated November 14, 2026 at 1:17 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 1,617 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,406 (87%), 1,039 of them in this group, measured November 14, 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 National Visa Center Read by a model
Plaintiffs contend that the National Visa Center has unreasonably delayed scheduling Plaintiff Ogbede’s interview, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 551-559.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
According to the Complaint, the Petition was approved in March 2023, after which it was transferred to the National Visa Center, “where it is still pending with constant, relentless, and nonstop delays.”
What the suit asked for Schedule an interview Read by a model
Consequently, Plaintiffs seek mandamus relief “to compel [D]efendant[] to perform a duty owed to [P]laintiff[s]”; namely, to “set the matter for an interview.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [#13] is GRANTED;
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Defendant seeks dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [#13].
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ Complaint [#1] is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction;
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [#13] is GRANTED;
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ Complaint [#1] is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction;
Months pending 10 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
declaring that the Petition became documentarily complete on March 26, 2025, just 10 months ago
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Nigeria Read by a model
Plaintiff Ogbede, a Nigerian national
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
If the Petition is approved, Plaintiff Ogbede, a Nigerian national, would receive a visa to come to the United States to be with her husband, a United States citizen.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-01902
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 23)
Filed
June 17, 2025
Ended
January 26, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
223 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 3 (dismissed: lack of jurisdiction)

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why. Other suits in this court.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

Supreme Court and Tenth 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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.