Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

FILAPPOV v. RUBIO

District of ColumbiaSparkle L. SooknananDecided August 10, 2026No. 1:25-cv-03492

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
In support of dismissal, the Defendants argue that the State Department is not obligated to adjudicate visa applications and that the doctrine of consular nonreviewability bars Mr. Filippov’s claims.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
Stanislav Filippov, a dual citizen of Sweden and Russia, applied to renew his E-2 visa in June 2024.1 He was interviewed in September 2024, and his application has remained in administrative processing since then.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
He was interviewed in September 2024, and his application has remained in administrative processing since then. In September 2025, he sued seeking an order compelling the Defendants to adjudicate his application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 5.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
The Defendants, in turn, have moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 5.
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 the Complaint.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 5.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The Court is thus compelled to conclude that Mr. Filippov’s Complaint fails to plausibly allege facts stating a claim for unreasonable delay. Accordingly, the Court must dismiss the Complaint.
Months pending 15 months from the application to the suit; 25.8 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Stanislav Filippov, a dual citizen of Sweden and Russia, applied to renew his E-2 visa in June 2024.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
Consequently, TRAC factors one and two favor the Defendants.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
the complaint is silent about the effect of relief on other visa applicants—courts have held that this factor factors defendants.” Id. (collecting cases). Here, too, the Court concludes that this factor favors the Defendants.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Sweden Read by a model
Stanislav Filippov, a dual citizen of Sweden and Russia

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-03492
Filed
September 30, 2025
Status
Pending as of the last docket check

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.