Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Wisconsin

Russell, Matthew v. Blinken, Antony

Western District of WisconsinJames D. PetersonDecided May 1, 2024No. 3:23-cv-00520

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
There is no Seventh Circuit precedent about whether the State Department has a mandatory duty to schedule visa petitioners for consular interviews, and district courts across the country are split on the issue.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiffs Matthew Russell and Angela Ashaba Kirabo, his wife, seek to compel the defendants, United States government officials responsible for processing immigrant visas, to conduct a consular interview and to adjudicate Kirabo’s family-based visa application.
What the suit asked for Schedule an interview Read by a model
The court concludes that it has jurisdiction to compel defendants to schedule a consular interview if defendants have unreasonably delayed doing so.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Dkt. 5, is GRANTED, and plaintiffs’ complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Dkt. 5, is GRANTED
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Dkt. 5, is GRANTED, and plaintiffs’ complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment in defendants’ favor and close this case.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The relevant facts of this case are indistinguishable from Calderon-Ramirez, so the court will follow that precedent and dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to state a claim.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
The court will grant defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ due process claim because plaintiffs have forfeited that claim.
Months pending 17.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
In November 2022, when Kirabo completed all the required forms and documents,
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablenot reached
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
Kirabo has been waiting for a consular interview for 18 months, the same length as the wait in Calderon-Ramirez. And plaintiffs have not alleged any aggravating factor that could make Kirabo’s 18-month wait unreasonable.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Plaintiffs do not allege that Kirabo has been treated differently from others who are also waiting for visas, so a court order to adjudicate her application would unfairly let her “skip ahead” in line.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Uganda Read by a model
His wife, plaintiff Angela Ashaba Kirabo, is a citizen of Uganda.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
plaintiffs’ case involves an immediate relative visa, which has no statutory cap.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:23-cv-00520
Filed
August 2, 2023
Ended
May 1, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
273 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 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.