Mandamus decisions / District of Massachusetts

Dy v. Blinken

District of MassachusettsNathaniel M. GortonDecided November 28, 2023No. 1:23-cv-10608

Read the decision Original 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	USCIS Read by a model Plaintiffs ask this Court to order USCIS to review Yib’s application promptly or, if the case is sent back to DOS, order that Department promptly to act on the petition.
Form or filing	DS-260 (immigrant visa); I-130 (relative petition) Read by a model an immigrant visa petition that Dy, an American citizen, filed on behalf of Yib, a Cambodian citizen.
What the suit asked for	Decide the application Read by a model Plaintiffs ask this Court to order USCIS to review Yib’s application promptly or, if the case is sent back to DOS, order that Department promptly to act on the petition.
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model Accordingly, defendants’ motion to dismiss will be denied, without prejudice.
Motion decided	Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model Defendants, all of whom are federal government officials, filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. Rule 12(b)(1) (Docket No. 6).
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model Defendants, all of whom are federal government officials, filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. Rule 12(b)(1) (Docket No. 6).
Disposition	Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model Plaintiffs’ claims against Department of Homeland Security and USCIS officials Alejandro Mayorkas, Ur Mendoza Jaddou and John M. Allen will be dismissed as moot.
Prevailing party	Each side in part Read by a model ALLOWED, and those defendants are dismissed from this case; but b) with respect to defendant Antony Blinken, DENIED without prejudice.
The delay claim	The delay claim goes on Read by a model b) with respect to defendant Antony Blinken, DENIED without prejudice.
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	Consular nonreviewability rejected; Held moot Read by a model Plaintiffs’ request does not offend the doctrine of consular non-reviewability.
Nationality	Cambodia Read by a model Yib is a citizen of Cambodia
I-130 category	Immediate relative Read by a model Yib is a citizen of Cambodia and married Dy in Cambodia in January, 2019.

How the case ended

Docket: No. 1:23-cv-10608
Filed: March 20, 2023
Ended: December 1, 2023
Suit's filing to its end: 256 days
How it ended: Ended once the agency acted
From the record: voluntary dismissal 2023-11-30; idb disp 12 (dismissed: voluntarily)

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 First 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.

Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. 667

Supreme Court, June 26, 2018. Mandel's facially-legitimate-and-bona-fide standard governs constitutional challenges to entry restrictions, and a citation to a valid statutory ground ordinarily satisfies it.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Department of State v. Muñoz, 602 U.S. 899

Supreme Court, June 21, 2024. A U.S. citizen has no fundamental liberty interest in a noncitizen spouse's admission, so marriage alone entitles the citizen neither to Mandel review of the consular refusal nor to an explanation beyond the statutory citation.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753

Supreme Court, June 29, 1972. When a visa refusal burdens a U.S. citizen's own constitutional rights, courts ask only whether the Executive gave a facially legitimate and bona fide reason and do not look behind it.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55

Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Adams v. Baker, 909 F.2d 643

First Circuit, July 26, 1990. A visa denial stands under Mandel where the government states a facially legitimate and bona fide reason, and the court will not weigh the evidence behind it.

ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Clarified (jurisdictional description superseded by Muñoz), as recognized in Teles De Menezes v. Rubio, 156 F.4th 1 (2025).
Teles De Menezes v. Rubio, 156 F.4th 1

First Circuit, September 18, 2025. After Muñoz, consular nonreviewability is a merits defense rather than a jurisdictional bar, and it does not reach a challenge to the State Department's reclassification of an approved petition as opposed to a visa refusal.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 2 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-10-31; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
Towns of Wellesley, Concord & Norwood v. FERC, 829 F.2d 275

First Circuit, September 25, 1987. The First Circuit applies the TRAC factors when asked to compel agency action that has been unreasonably delayed.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Patel v. Jaddou, 118 F.4th 475

First Circuit, October 16, 2024. Assuming statutory jurisdiction, § 1255(a) does not forbid USCIS from holding adjustment applications until a visa number is immediately available, so no § 706(1) claim lies against the abeyance policy; the Fourth Circuit rejects deciding the merits before the § 1252(a)(2)(B) question.

ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Reasoning rejected in the Fourth Circuit by Lolakshi Kale v. Angelica Alfonso-Royals, 139 F.4th 329 (2025).