Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of New York

Qazi v. Rubio

Southern District of New YorkJeannette A. VargasDecided August 17, 2026No. 1:26-cv-02668

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
ordering Defendants Marco Rubio, in his capacity as Secretary of the U.S. State Department, and Brian Heath, in his capacity as Consul General of the U.S. Consulate General in Frankfurt, to complete the administrative processing and adjudication of Qazi’s visa application within 30 days.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
filed a complaint to compel the Government to adjudicate his H-1B visa application.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
to complete the administrative processing and adjudication of Qazi’s visa application within 30 days.
Kind of order An order on fees Read by a model
Qazi now moves for costs and fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d).
Motion decided Fees under EAJA Read by a model
Qazi now moves for costs and fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d).
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Qazi now moves for costs and fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d).
Disposition Attorney's fees An order on attorney's fees or costs after the case, counted for the side that won the fee motion. Read by a model
Qazi now moves for costs and fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d).
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Qazi now moves for costs and fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d).
The delay claim Not decided here Read by a model
Qazi now moves for costs and fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d).
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision, this one. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
Qazi v. Rubio June 3, 2026 Jeannette A. Vargas Granted in the applicant's favor
Qazi v. RubioThis decisionThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted August 17, 2026 Jeannette A. Vargas Attorney's fees

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:26-cv-02668
Filed
March 31, 2026
Ended
June 3, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
64 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 17 (judgment: other), 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 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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.