Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Virginia

Ahmed v. Rubio

Eastern District of VirginiaMichael S NachmanoffDecided August 3, 2026No. 1:25-cv-02116

Read the decision Original on CourtListener

2,917 written decisions from 2,664 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 7:07 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 At the conclusion of Plaintiff’s interview, an embassy officer informed him that his case had been “temporarily refused” under INA § 221(g), and he would be placed in administrative processing pending the collection of additional information.
Form or filing	221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model On March 24, 2025, Plaintiff filed his application for an H1-B visa.
What the suit asked for	Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model Rather, he asks this Court to remove him from his current limbo and require Defendants to finish that processing in a timely manner.
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model For the reasons that follow, the Court will deny Defendants’ Motion.
Motion decided	Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model Now before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for Lack of Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim.
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model Now before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for Lack of Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim.
Disposition	Denied in the applicant's favor The principal motion was denied in full: a motion to dismiss denied so the case goes on, or relief denied on the merits. Read by a model Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for Lack of Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim (ECF 8) is DENIED.
Prevailing party	Applicant Read by a model Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for Lack of Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim (ECF 8) is DENIED.
The delay claim	The delay claim goes on Read by a model Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for Lack of Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim (ECF 8) is DENIED.
Months pending	7.9 months from the application to the suit; 16.3 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model On March 24, 2025, Plaintiff filed his application for an H1-B visa.
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 But, for the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has standing, the Court has jurisdiction over the matter, and consular non-reviewability does not bar its review.
Nationality	Egypt Read by a model Plaintiff is a citizen of Egypt.

How the case ended

Docket: No. 1:25-cv-02116
Filed: November 20, 2025
Ended: August 28, 2026
Suit's filing to its end: 281 days
How it ended: Ended once the agency acted
From the record: voluntary dismissal 2026-08-28

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 Fourth 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.

Department of State v. Muñoz, 602 U.S. 899

Supreme Court, June 21, 2024. A U.S. citizen has no fundamental liberty interest in a noncitizen spouse's admission, so marriage alone entitles the citizen neither to Mandel review of the consular refusal nor to an explanation beyond the statutory citation.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. 667

Supreme Court, June 26, 2018. Mandel's facially-legitimate-and-bona-fide standard governs constitutional challenges to entry restrictions, and a citation to a valid statutory ground ordinarily satisfies it.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753

Supreme Court, June 29, 1972. When a visa refusal burdens a U.S. citizen's own constitutional rights, courts ask only whether the Executive gave a facially legitimate and bona fide reason and do not look behind it.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55

Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Sesay v. United States, 984 F.3d 312

Fourth Circuit, January 5, 2021. Consular nonreviewability bars review of a relative's visa refusal; under Din and Trump v. Hawaii a valid statutory citation satisfies Mandel, and the court will not look behind it absent a particularized showing of bad faith.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 4 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-10-30; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
Gonzalez v. Cuccinelli, 985 F.3d 357

Fourth Circuit, January 14, 2021. Courts may review delay in placing U-visa petitioners on the waitlist under the TRAC factors and should not dismiss such claims at the pleading stage, but lack jurisdiction over delay in pre-waitlist work-permit requests, a point on which the Sixth Circuit disagrees.

ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Rejected in the Sixth Circuit by Barrios Garcia v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 25 F.4th 430 (2022).
Lovo v. Miller, 107 F.4th 199

Fourth Circuit, July 3, 2024. The 'decision or action' language of § 1182(a)(9)(B)(v), which the court treated as coextensive with § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), does not reach USCIS inaction, so a district court may hear a claim that USCIS unreasonably delayed a provisional unlawful-presence waiver.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 5 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-10-29; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.