Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

MUMIN v. BURNS

District of ColumbiaRudolph ContrerasDecided June 12, 2026No. 1:25-cv-03024

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
Plaintiff Hassan Abdi Mumin brought this action seeking to compel Defendants Susan M. Burns and Marco Rubio, working in their official capacities at the United States Department of State, to adjudicate Mr. Mumin’s visa application.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Like the plaintiff in Karimova, Mr. Mumin’s visa application was refused by a consular officer under INA § 221(g) and placed in administrative processing.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
In his view, the final adjudication of his visa application has been unreasonably delayed as it is currently held in administrative processing, which warrants relief under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and Mandamus Act.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
The government has moved to dismiss the complaint under Fed. R. of Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The government has moved to dismiss the complaint under Fed. R. of Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (b)(6).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court must dismiss Mr. Mumin’s complaint.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Neither the INA, APA, nor federal regulations create a “crystal-clear” obligation for Defendants to re-adjudicate Mr. Mumin’s visa application. Accordingly, the Court must dismiss Mr. Mumin’s complaint.
Months pending 24.9 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
he had a consular interview in Kenya in May 2024.
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
Neither the INA, APA, nor federal regulations create a “crystal-clear” obligation for Defendants to re-adjudicate Mr. Mumin’s visa application.
Nationality Somalia Read by a model
Mr. Mumin is a Somali citizen who lives in Kenya.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
He is married to a U.S. citizen. Id. ¶ 20. His wife filed a visa petition with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services on his behalf in February 2019

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-03024
Filed
September 5, 2025
Ended
June 15, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
283 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.