Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Akther v. Bitter

District of ColumbiaLoren L. AlikhanDecided August 12, 2024No. 1:23-cv-02431

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 Maymuna Akther, proceeding pro se,1 brings this action against Defendants Rena Bitter, Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Consular Affairs; Helen LaFave, Deputy Chief of Mission, U.S. Embassy in Bangladesh; and Antony Blinken, Secretary of the U.S. Department of State.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
to compel the Defendants to take action on and adjudicate her properly-filed I-130 visa application.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
She asks the court “to compel the Defendants to take action on and adjudicate her properly-filed I-130 visa application.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss the matter as moot.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On June 10, 2024, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
the court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss the matter as moot.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
the court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss the matter as moot.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
the court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss the matter as moot.
Months pending Not stated at filing 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
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
the court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss the matter as moot.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-02431
Filed
August 22, 2023
Ended
August 13, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
357 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
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. 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.