Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Pasiukevich v. Lawton

District of ColumbiaRichard J. LeonDecided July 17, 2025No. 1:24-cv-03349

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
Plaintiff has inquired about the status of his application with the U.S. Embassy in Poland multiple times and was advised that his administrative processing remains ongoing.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
Tis application for an T.-1 nonimmigrant visa was refused pursuant to Section 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) and was placed into “administrative processing,”
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Plaintiff claims that the defendants have unreasonably delayed in conclusively adjudicating his visa application, and so seeks an order compelling a final adjudication.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the Court will GRANT the Government’s Motion to Dismiss.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
On January 31, 2025, the Government moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On January 31, 2025, the Government moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Because Pasiukevich cannot identify a clear, non-discretionary duty requiring a consular officer to take any further action on his visa application, the Court will GRANT the Government’s Motion to Dismiss.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Because Pasiukevich cannot identify a clear, non-discretionary duty requiring a consular officer to take any further action on his visa application, the Court will GRANT the Government’s Motion to Dismiss.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Because Pasiukevich cannot identify a clear, non-discretionary duty requiring a consular officer to take any further action on his visa application, the Court will GRANT the Government’s Motion to Dismiss.
Months pending 13 months from the application to the suit; 21.1 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
In October 2023, plaintiff attended his consular interview at the U.S. Embassy in Poland.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings No duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal Read by a model
In short, after a consular officer refuses a visa application under Section 221(g) of the INA, there is no additional clear statutory or regulatory duty to act.
Nationality Belarus Read by a model
Pasiukevich is a citizen of Belarus but currently resides in Poland.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-03349
Filed
November 27, 2024
Ended
July 18, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
233 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.