Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Van Ravenswaay v. Chertoff

District of ColumbiaColleen Kollar-KotellyDecided May 4, 2009No. 1:08-cv-01455

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 U.S. Consulate in Suriname denied his visa request on March 30, 2004, due to ineligibility under Section 212(a)(2)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(c) (relating to illicit trafficking of a controlled substance).
Form or filing B-1 Read by a model
On March 26, 2004, Plaintiff Eric van Ravenswaay submitted an application for a B-1 nonimmigrant visa to enter the United States “for business purposes.”
What the suit asked for Not recorded Read by a model
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court shall GRANT Defendants’ [9] Motion to Dismiss, for the reasons that follow.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, the Court shall GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On January 21, 2009, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
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 above, the Court shall GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, the Court shall GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, the Court shall GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, the Court shall GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
Months pending 52.9 months from the application to the suit; 61.3 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On March 26, 2004, Plaintiff Eric van Ravenswaay submitted an application for a B-1 nonimmigrant visa to enter the United States “for business purposes.”
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied; Consular nonreviewability applied Read by a model
This argument fails because the INA expressly precludes judicial review of these types of discretionary decisions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:08-cv-01455
Filed
August 21, 2008
Ended
May 4, 2009
Suit's filing to its end
256 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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

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.