Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Missouri

Wilkes v. Blinken

Eastern District of MissouriStephen R. ClarkDecided April 29, 2022No. 4:21-cv-01148

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,917 written decisions from 2,664 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 7:07 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
But regardless of the State Department’s allegedly unreasonable delay in scheduling a visa interview, Wilkes has pleaded no facts alleging that Defendants Mayorkas or Jaddou have responsibility for that delay.
Form or filing DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
This case centers on Wilkes’s K-1 visa petition for his fiancée.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants have unreasonably delayed adjudication of his fiancée’s visa and brings claims under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(1), and the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The Court grants in part and denies in part the Defendants’ [4] motion to dismiss
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Summary judgment Read by a model
The Court first addresses the motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, then considers the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and concludes with consideration of Wilkes’s motion for summary judgment.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
Thus, the Court considers these facts while evaluating the Defendants’ motion to dismiss and Wilkes’s motion for summary judgment.
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
The claims against Defendants Antony Blinken, Richard Visek, Rena Bitter, and Heather Variava remain.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
The claims against Defendants Antony Blinken, Richard Visek, Rena Bitter, and Heather Variava remain.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
The claims against Defendants Antony Blinken, Richard Visek, Rena Bitter, and Heather Variava remain.
Months pending 26.1 months from the application to the suit The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
In July 2019, Wilkes filed a K-1 visa petition for his fiancée, Arlyn Siaton Velonta, with Citizenship and Immigration Services so that she could come to the United States as a permanent resident.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the applicant
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the applicant
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the applicant
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
the Court cannot find at this stage that a rule of reason has governed the time the Defendants have taken to adjudicate Wilkes’s petition.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing rejected; Line-jumping rejected Read by a model
Defendants at this stage fail to establish that a rule of reason governs their decision-making or that a queue exists for visa adjudication.
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Wilkes’s claims against them are “now moot,” Niaz, 2007 WL 4246018, at *1, and the Court grants their motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Nationality Philippines Read by a model
Desirous of marriage to his Filipina fiancée, Christopher Wilkes petitioned the government for a visa that would allow her to journey to the United States.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 4:21-cv-01148
Filed
September 23, 2021
Ended
August 24, 2022
Suit's filing to its end
335 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
stipulated dismissal 2022-08-24; 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 Eighth 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.