Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of New York

Zhou v. United States Department of State

Southern District of New YorkGeorge B. DanielsDecided October 20, 2026No. 1:26-cv-02024

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
Plaintiffs interviewed for their visas at the U.S. consulate in Guangzhou in June 2025 and, shortly thereafter, submitted additional information at the consular officer’s request.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiffs interviewed for their visas at the U.S. consulate in Guangzhou in June 2025 and, shortly thereafter, submitted additional information at the consular officer’s request. (Compl. 4 4-5, 9.) Their applications have remained in “administrative processing” since those additional submissions.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Their applications have remained in “administrative processing” since those additional submissions.
Kind of order A transfer order Read by a model
Accordingly, the Government’s motion, (ECF No. 18), is GRANTED to the extent that this action is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
Motion decided Other motion to dismiss; Transfer Read by a model
the Government’s motion is GRANTED in part, and this case is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The Government moves to dismiss for, among other reasons, improper venue.
Disposition Transferred to another court An order moving the case to another court. It decides where the suit is heard, not who wins, so it is not counted as either side's win. Read by a model
Accordingly, the Government’s motion, (ECF No. 18), is GRANTED to the extent that this action is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
Accordingly, the Government’s motion, (ECF No. 18), is GRANTED to the extent that this action is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
The delay claim Not decided here Read by a model
Accordingly, the Government’s motion, (ECF No. 18), is GRANTED to the extent that this action is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
Months pending 16.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiffs interviewed for their visas at the U.S. consulate in Guangzhou in June 2025
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality China Read by a model
Plaintiffs Tong Zhou and Xiaoxiao Wu, citizens of China

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:26-cv-02024
Filed
March 12, 2026
Ended
October 20, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
222 days
How it ended
Ended, outcome not recorded
From the record
terminated; no disposition recorded

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why.

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.