Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Arkansas

Ruston v. U.S. Department of State

Eastern District of ArkansasSusan Webber WrightDecided October 19, 1998

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
Later he learned that the State Department had revoked the visa in May of 1996.
Form or filing B-1; L-1 Read by a model
Presently, the Rustons do not possess B-1 visas and the issue of Peter Ruston's L-1 status is the subject of a pending administrative proceeding.
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
The Court hereby grants the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction [Docket No. 13].
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Summary judgment Read by a model
Additionally, the Court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case and hereby grants the defendants' 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The defendants filed a motion requesting dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction [Docket No. 13]
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
The Court hereby grants the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction [Docket No. 13].
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Additionally, the Court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case and hereby grants the defendants' 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
The Court hereby grants the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction [Docket No. 13].
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability applied Read by a model
If the Court granted such a remedy, it would, in effect, claim for itself the power to issue visas. Only consular officers may issue visas.
Nationality Australia Read by a model
On December 16, 1996, Peter Ruston, an Australian, attempted to enter the United States.

How the case ended

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

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.