Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Khamidova v. Blinken

District of ColumbiaJohn D. BatesDecided September 27, 2022No. 1:22-cv-01460

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
Although they were selected to submit an application and did so in a timely manner, plaintiffs have not received an interview from the State Department, which is required to be considered for a diversity visa.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Each has submitted the required forms to KCC (either a DS-260 after December 21, 2021, or a DS-260 and required supporting documentation before December 9, 2021, see Khamidova Miles Decl. ¶ 9)
What the suit asked for Schedule an interview Read by a model
In September 2022, each plaintiff filed a motion for temporary restraining order (“TRO”) seeking to compel the State Department to schedule a visa interview before the September 30, 2022 end of fiscal year.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny plaintiffs’ motions.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
Plaintiffs filed nearly identical motions for a temporary restraining order in each of these three cases in mid-September.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Plaintiffs filed nearly identical motions for a temporary restraining order in each of these three cases in mid-September.
Disposition Denied in the government's favor The principal motion was denied in full: a motion to dismiss denied so the case goes on, or relief denied on the merits. Read by a model
and hence will deny plaintiffs’ motions for TROs.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
and hence will deny plaintiffs’ motions for TROs.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
and hence will deny plaintiffs’ motions for TROs.
The other claims Relief denied Read by a model
and hence will deny plaintiffs’ motions for TROs.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonnot reached
  • 2. Congressional timetablenot reached
  • 3. Human health and welfareneutral
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedneutral
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
The third and fifth factors therefore favor neither the plaintiffs nor the government.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
In sum, none of the other five factors provide the plaintiffs with strong enough support to overcome the fourth factor: the effect on other visa applicants that an order directing the State Department to adjudicate plaintiffs’ cases first would have.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:22-cv-01460
Filed
May 24, 2022
Ended
October 11, 2022
Suit's filing to its end
140 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
voluntary dismissal 2022-10-09; idb disp 12 (dismissed: voluntarily)

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.