Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Muneer v. United States Department of Homeland Security

District of ColumbiaEllen Segal HuvelleDecided August 27, 2019

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
In support, they have attached two sworn declarations stating that plaintiffs’ visa applications were denied by consular officials.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal) Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ complaint seeks a writ of mandamus to compel defendants to complete all administrative processing of plaintiffs’ visa applications within 60 days or, alternatively, a writ of mandamus to compel defendants to issue the visas.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ complaint seeks a writ of mandamus to compel defendants to complete all administrative processing of plaintiffs’ visa applications within 60 days or, alternatively, a writ of mandamus to compel defendants to issue the visas.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
ORDERED that defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is GRANTED
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Summary judgment Read by a model
ORDERED that defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is GRANTED; it is further ORDERED that defendants’ motion for summary judgment is DENIED AS MOOT;
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
this court lacks jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) because plaintiffs’ claims are moot.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
this court lacks jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) because plaintiffs’ claims are moot.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
this court lacks jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) because plaintiffs’ claims are 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
this court lacks jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) because plaintiffs’ claims are moot.

How the case ended

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

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.