Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Oregon

Buell v. United States Department of State

District of OregonJolie A. RussoDecided June 12, 2025No. 3:24-cv-01942

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 State Department has supervisory responsibility over offices responsible for visa application processing, including administrative processing and the U.S. embassies, and therefore Secretary Rubio and the State Department are properly named Defendants.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiffs filed applications for a visa with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services that would allow Mrs. Buell to immigrate to the United States.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Instead, Plaintiffs seek timely administrative processing of a visa application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The Court GRANTS IN PART Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF 7.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants agree with the Findings and Recommendation’s conclusion that the case should be dismissed for failure to state a claim for unreasonable delay but argue that three threshold matters also support dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The Court GRANTS IN PART Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF 7.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
The Court dismisses this case without leave to amend but without prejudice for Plaintiffs to renew their claims if the current delay matures into an unreasonable delay.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The Court dismisses this case without leave to amend but without prejudice for Plaintiffs to renew their claims if the current delay matures into an unreasonable delay.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The Court has reviewed for clear error and adopts the recommendation that the case be dismissed without leave to amend for failure to state a claim.
Months pending 14 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiffs failed to allege that Defendants have unreasonably delayed processing Mrs. Buell’s visa by delaying only 14 months.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found Read by a model
Therefore, the Court agrees with the Findings and Recommendation that at this stage, Plaintiffs adequately have pleaded that consular non-reviewability does not bar their claims.
Nationality Russia Read by a model
Plaintiff Adam Buell, a U.S. citizen, is married to Plaintiff Olga Valeryevna Buell, a citizen and national of Russia.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Plaintiff Adam Buell, a U.S. citizen, is married to Plaintiff Olga Valeryevna Buell, a citizen and national of Russia.

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision, this one. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
Buell et al v. United States Department of State et al April 28, 2025 Jolie A. Russo Magistrate judge's recommendation
Buell v. United States Department of StateThis decisionThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted June 12, 2025 Jolie A. Russo Dismissed

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:24-cv-01942
Filed
November 20, 2024
Ended
June 12, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
204 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2025-06-12 dismisses on the TRAC factors

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 Ninth 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.