Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

SHRIVASTAVA v. RUBIO

District of ColumbiaRandolph Daniel MossDecided February 5, 2026No. 1:26-cv-00352

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 states that as of January 8, 2026, the U.S. Consulate possesses all of the information it requires to make a decision.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
nonimmigrant visa and scheduled a visa interview at the U.S. Consulate in Chennai, India for May 9, 2025. Id. ¶¶ 62, 64. Thereafter, Plaintiff was informed that his Application required “additional administrative processing.”
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
requests that the Court compel Defendant to make a final decision on his Application.
Kind of order A transfer order Read by a model
The case is transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Motion decided Other motion to dismiss Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds venue improper in the Central District of California and GRANTS in part the Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(3), without prejudice.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On December 30, 2025, Defendant moved to dismiss the Complaint under Rule 12(b)(3) and Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Disposition Transferred to another court An order moving the case to another court. It decides where the suit is heard, not who wins, so it is not counted as either side's win. Read by a model
The case is transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
The case is transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
The delay claim Not decided here Read by a model
In light of this finding, the Court declines to reach the remainder of the arguments raised in Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
Months pending 8.9 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
nonimmigrant visa and scheduled a visa interview at the U.S. Consulate in Chennai, India for May 9, 2025.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:26-cv-00352
Filed
February 5, 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.