Mandamus decisions / District of Massachusetts

Durrani v. Bitter

District of MassachusettsF. Dennis Saylor IVDecided September 18, 2024No. 1:24-cv-11313

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	Department of State Read by a model The complaint alleges that the Department of State and the U.S. Embassy in Pakistan have unreasonably delayed their review of the visa application
Form or filing	DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model The Court takes judicial notice of the status of the visa application on the U.S. Department of State website, according to the Immigrant Visa Case Number provided in the complaint.
What the suit asked for	Decide the application Read by a model As to the first element, the required action at issue is the agency’s adjudication of plaintiff’s mother’s visa application.
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
Motion decided	Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). For the following reasons, that motion will be granted.
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
Disposition	Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The clerk is instructed to enter a separate order of dismissal.
Prevailing party	Government Read by a model For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
The delay claim	Dismissed Read by a model For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The clerk is instructed to enter a separate order of dismissal.
The other claims	Dismissed Read by a model Either way, the complaint fails to state a plausible due-process claim, and therefore Count 3 will be dismissed.
Months pending	14 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model In the roughly 14 months since then, no interview has been scheduled, and the petition has remained with the NVC.
TRAC factors	The court weighed the TRAC factors 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government 3. Human health and welfarefavors the government 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government 6. No impropriety neededneutral Read by a model The first TRAC factor weighs in defendants’ favor.
The government's delay arguments	First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model But those are not factual allegations that provide a plausible basis for the contention that defendants’ practice of scheduling interviews as availability arises is unreasonable.
Threshold rulings	None Read by a model
I-130 category	Immediate relative Read by a model Although plaintiff himself filed the Form I-130 as the U.S. citizen sponsor for the visa petition, his mother is the subject of the visa application requiring approval from the government.

How the case ended

Docket: No. 1:24-cv-11313
Filed: May 17, 2024
Ended: September 18, 2024
Suit's filing to its end: 124 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 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).