Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Pennsylvania

MAHMOOD v. MAYORKAS

Eastern District of PennsylvaniaDecided September 28, 2023No. 2:23-cv-01596

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,996 written decisions from 2,731 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided November 12, 2026. Updated November 14, 2026 at 1:17 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 1,617 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,406 (87%), 1,039 of them in this group, measured November 14, 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
Mr. Mahmood’s family members still have not been able to schedule an interview because of Department of State delays.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Mr. Mahmood and his family submitted their Forms DS-260 to the National Visa Center in July and August 2020.
What the suit asked for Schedule an interview Read by a model
The Pennsylvanian also asks we issue a writ of mandamus to compel the officials (o immediately interview his family members in Pakistan
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
We dismiss all claims against Director Jaddou.
Motion decided Other motion to dismiss Read by a model
Secretary Blinken, Secretary Mayorkas, Director Jaddou, and Assistant Secretary Stufft move to dismiss
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Secretary Blinken, Secretary Mayorkas, Director Jaddou, and Assistant Secretary Stufft move to dismiss arguing:
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
We do not today dismiss the citizen’s and his extended family’s claim for unreasonable delay under the Administrative Procedure Act subject to further discovery and allow that claim to go forward.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
We do not today dismiss the citizen’s and his extended family’s claim for unreasonable delay under the Administrative Procedure Act subject to further discovery and allow that claim to go forward.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
We do not today dismiss the citizen’s and his extended family’s claim for unreasonable delay under the Administrative Procedure Act subject to further discovery and allow that claim to go forward.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
We also dismiss the claims of unlawful agency action, unlawful application of federal law, as well as constitutional claims to family unity.
Months pending 38.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Mr. Mahmood and his family submitted their Forms DS-260 to the National Visa Center in July and August 2020.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
We dismiss the Mahmood family’s claim of unreasonable delay under the Mandamus Act because they have an adequate remedy under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Nationality Pakistan Read by a model
The United States citizen and his Pakistani siblings, in-laws, and their children today sue several United States officials
I-130 category Family preference Read by a model
Mr. Mahmood sought Family Fourth Preference (F-4) visas for his siblings.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:23-cv-01596
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 18)
Filed
April 26, 2023
Ended
December 20, 2023
Suit's filing to its end
0 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
stipulated dismissal 2023-12-19; idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why. Other suits in this court.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

Supreme Court and Third 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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.