Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Massachusetts

Alkasalani v. U.S. Embassy in Lebanon

District of MassachusettsMark G. MastroianniDecided August 25, 2026No. 3:25-cv-30059

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
Accordingly, the court finds that Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that the DOS has a nondiscretionary duty of adjudicating Mr. Ismail’s application within a reasonable time after having received Mr. Ismail’s additional evidence that may overcome his initial I.N.A. § 221(g) refusal.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
the visa applicant executes her or his visa application, which in this case is the DS-160, Online Nonimmigrant Visa Application
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
brings this action seeking to compel the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon (“Defendant”) to complete the administrative processing of her visa application on behalf of her fiancé (Abbass Ismail)
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 17) is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s due process claim and DENIED as to her unreasonable delay claim pursuant to the APA.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (b)(6), respectively, Defendant moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, under the consular non-reviewability doctrine, and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendant moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
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
the court denies Defendant’s motion as to the APA and MVA unreasonable delay claim.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
the court denies Defendant’s motion as to the APA and MVA unreasonable delay claim.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
the court denies Defendant’s motion as to the APA and MVA unreasonable delay claim.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment due process claim is dismissed with prejudice.
Months pending 24 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
administrative processing immediately following his interview on August 23, 2024.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found Read by a model
Accordingly, the court holds that the doctrine of consular non-reviewability does not preclude Plaintiff’s claim to compel the DOS to adjudicate Mr. Ismail’s visa application

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:25-cv-30059
Filed
April 10, 2025
Status
Pending as of the last docket check

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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.