Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Modukuri v. Larson

District of ColumbiaTanya S. ChutkanDecided July 22, 2024No. 1:23-cv-03508

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
According to the Complaint, Plaintiff’s employer-side application was approved in May 2022, and in November 2022 he was interviewed at the U.S. Consulate General in Hyderabad.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
His application was “placed in so-called ‘administrative processing.’”
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Plaintiff challenges the subsequent delay in further adjudication under the APA and the Mandamus Act.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For these reasons, the court will GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 6.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants have moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants have moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the reasons set forth below, the court will GRANT Defendants’ Motion and dismiss this action.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons set forth below, the court will GRANT Defendants’ Motion and dismiss this action.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiff’s claims must be dismissed because they have failed to plausibly allege an unreasonable delay as a matter of law.
Months pending 12 months from the application to the suit; 20.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
According to the Complaint, Plaintiff’s employer-side application was approved in May 2022, and in November 2022 he was interviewed at the U.S. Consulate General in Hyderabad.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
The first and second factors favor Defendants.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
The fourth TRAC factor favors Defendants. They correctly observe that, in effect, the result Plaintiff seeks “would be merely to expedite the consideration of [his] application ahead of others.”
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality India Read by a model
Plaintiff, a citizen of India,

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-03508
Filed
November 22, 2023
Ended
July 22, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
243 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 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.