Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Connecticut

Elrewiny v. Armstrong

District of ConnecticutVernon D. OliverDecided February 15, 2026No. 3:25-cv-00463

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
alleging that United States Embassy in Egypt failed to adjudicate visa petitions for her parents
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiff Menatalla Elrewiny commenced this action seeking a writ of mandamus and other relief under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), alleging that United States Embassy in Egypt failed to adjudicate visa petitions for her parents
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiff now seeks an order compelling Defendants to adjudicate the visa petitions without further delay.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted. All claims are dismissed with prejudice.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants John Armstrong and Evyenia Sidereas have moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants John Armstrong and Evyenia Sidereas have moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
All claims are dismissed with prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and close the case.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted. All claims are dismissed with prejudice.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability applied; APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
this Court finds the claims here categorically precluded by the doctrine of consular nonreviewability.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
In October 2020, Plaintiff, a United States citizen, filed Form I-130 (Petition for Alien Relative) on behalf of the Beneficiaries, who were born in Egypt.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:25-cv-00463
Filed
March 21, 2025
Ended
February 16, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
332 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant

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 Second 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.