Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of New York

Qazi v. Rubio

Southern District of New YorkJeannette A. VargasDecided June 3, 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
The Consulate, by its own admission, has not yet rendered a final decision as to Qazi’s visa application.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
Instead, Qazi submitted a Form DS-160 on July 20, 2025, to apply for an H- 1B visa abroad.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
are hereby ORDERED to complete the administrative processing and adjudication of Plaintiff’s visa application within 30 days from the date of this Order.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The Court concludes that Qazi has established that he is entitled to relief under Section 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”).
Motion decided Other motion to dismiss; Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
On May 23, 2026, the Court informed the parties that it construed the Defendants’ motion to dismiss as its opposition to the application for a preliminary injunction pursuant to Rule 65.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
On May 13, 2026, rather than filing their opposition to Plaintiff’s Rule 65 motion, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss.
Disposition Granted in the applicant's favor The principal motion was granted in full: summary judgment for either side, an injunction or TRO, a writ or order to act, fees. A motion to dismiss granted in full counts as Dismissed; a transfer is listed apart. Read by a model
are hereby ORDERED to complete the administrative processing and adjudication of Plaintiff’s visa application within 30 days from the date of this Order.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
are hereby ORDERED to complete the administrative processing and adjudication of Plaintiff’s visa application within 30 days from the date of this Order.
The delay claim Relief ordered Read by a model
are hereby ORDERED to complete the administrative processing and adjudication of Plaintiff’s visa application within 30 days from the date of this Order.
Months pending 8.3 months from the application to the suit; 10.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Instead, Qazi submitted a Form DS-160 on July 20, 2025, to apply for an H- 1B visa abroad.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the applicant
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the applicant
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesneutral
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
The first two TRAC factors, which are typically considered together, weigh in Qazi’s favor.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping found neutral Read by a model
The fourth TRAC factor—which concerns the effect of expediting the delayed action on other agency activities of a higher or competing priority—is neutral.
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails); Consular nonreviewability rejected; Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found Read by a model
Per the third prong, the availability of an APA claim leaves Plaintiff unable to establish that there is no other adequate remedy available.
Nationality Germany Read by a model
Qazi is a citizen of the Federal Republic of Germany

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. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
Qazi v. RubioThis decision June 3, 2026 Jeannette A. Vargas Granted in the applicant's favor
Qazi v. RubioThe 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.