Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

DE MOURA GOMES v. RUBIO

District of ColumbiaAmit P. MehtaDecided July 31, 2026No. 1:26-cv-01883

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
Having concluded that the Public Charge Policy is unlawful, the next question is whether the court can compel the State Department to act on Plaintiff’s application.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiff Newton De Moura Gomes (“Plaintiff”) is a Brazilian national who has applied for an immigrant visa through the EB-5 program
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
The court further orders Defendants to re-adjudicate Plaintiff’s application on an individualized basis under the INA and applicable regulations no later than 60 days after the application is deemed complete by a consular officer.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, treating Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 3, as one for summary judgment, that motion is granted.
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
Accordingly, the court treats Plaintiffs’ motion as one for summary judgment and rules on the present record.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, treating Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 3, as one for summary judgment, that motion is granted.
Disposition Granted in the applicant's favor The principal motion was granted in full: summary judgment for either side, an injunction or TRO, a writ or order to act, fees. A motion to dismiss granted in full counts as Dismissed; a transfer is listed apart. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, treating Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 3, as one for summary judgment, that motion is granted.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
The court will enter judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor.
The delay claim Relief ordered Read by a model
The court further orders Defendants to re-adjudicate Plaintiff’s application on an individualized basis under the INA and applicable regulations no later than 60 days after the application is deemed complete by a consular officer.
The other claims Relief ordered Read by a model
As relief, the court (1) declares the Public Charge Policy and the withholding of approval of Plaintiffs’ immigrant visas based on that policy to be unlawful and (2) enjoins Defendants from applying the Public Charge Policy to Plaintiff’s application.
Months pending 5.4 months from the application to the suit; 7.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiffs sat for a visa interview at the U.S. Consulate General in Rio de Janeiro on December 17, 2025.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the applicant
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 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
Future adjudication of Plaintiff’s application is suspended indefinitely, not based on a rule of reason, but because of the unlawful Public Charge Policy.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing rejected; Line-jumping rejected Read by a model
This case is different. Future adjudication of Plaintiff’s application is suspended indefinitely, not based on a rule of reason, but because of the unlawful Public Charge Policy.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found; APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
The doctrine of consular nonreviewability therefore presents no barrier to review.
Nationality Brazil Read by a model
Plaintiff Newton De Moura Gomes is a Brazilian national.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:26-cv-01883
Filed
May 29, 2026
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.