Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of New York

Fatima v. Rubio

Eastern District of New YorkDora Lizette IrizarryDecided September 29, 2026No. 1:25-cv-05318

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
After the interview, the consular officer informed Beneficiary that his Visa Petition had been refused under § 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and was being placed under administrative processing.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
On June 10, 2024, Beneficiary appeared for his immigrant visa interview in Islamabad, Pakistan before a consular officer.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
After the interview, the consular officer informed Beneficiary that his Visa Petition had been refused under § 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and was being placed under administrative processing.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is granted, and this case is dismissed in its entirety.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is granted, and this case is dismissed in its entirety.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and 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
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is granted, and this case is dismissed in its entirety.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is granted, and this case is dismissed in its entirety.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is granted, and this case is dismissed in its entirety.
Months pending 27.6 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On June 10, 2024, Beneficiary appeared for his immigrant visa interview in Islamabad, Pakistan before a consular officer.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability applied Read by a model
The Court need not address Defendants’ arguments regarding mootness or under Rule 12(b)(6) because the doctrine of consular nonreviewability bars judicial review of this case.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Plaintiff is a United States citizen.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-05318
Filed
September 23, 2025
Ended
September 30, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
372 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2026-09-29 dismisses for want of jurisdiction

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.