Mandamus decisions / District of Maryland

Dieter Canaza v. Platek

District of MarylandBrendan Abell HursonDecided March 24, 2026No. 1:25-cv-00303

Read the decision Original 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 Nor does the Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright alter the Court's conclusion that the timing of the DS-5535 falls within the Department of State's statutorily authorized discretion.
Form or filing	221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model filed a DS-160 (Online Nonimrnigrant Visa Application) with the National Visa Center
What the suit asked for	Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model At bottom, Plaintiffs contest the delay in adjudication· of their visa applications.
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model Defendants' Motion is GRANTED as described below.
Motion decided	Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is granted in part and denied in part, their motion to sever and drop misjoined Plaintiffs is granted, and their motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is granted as to the remaining Plaintiffs.
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model Pending before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, drop misjoined parties, and sever claims
Disposition	Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model The end result is that the relief requested in Defendants' Motion ( dismissal of all claims) is granted.
Prevailing party	Government Read by a model The end result is that the relief requested in Defendants' Motion ( dismissal of all claims) is granted.
The delay claim	Dismissed Read by a model Plaintiffs Doe and Canaza's unreasonable delay and mandamus claims a~e dismissed for failure to state a claim.
The other claims	Dismissed Read by a model Count Three-Plaintiffs' Challenge to DS-5535 and § 221 (g) "Schemes" Is Dismissed Under Rule 12(b)(l) as Nonjusticiable.
Months pending	25.8 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model Plaintiffs Canaza and Doe have been in administrative processing since January 29, 2024
TRAC factors	The court weighed the TRAC factors 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government 2. Congressional timetablenot reached 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant 6. No impropriety neededneutral Read by a model [t]he most important factors-those regarding the length of the delay and concerns about line-jumping-weigh in favor of granting the motion to dismiss
The government's delay arguments	Line-jumping accepted Read by a model [t]he most important factors-those regarding the length of the delay and concerns about line-jumping-weigh in favor of granting the motion to dismiss
Threshold rulings	None Read by a model
Nationality	Iran Read by a model Plaintiffs are eleven United States citizens and their respective Iranian fiance(e)s who have applied for K-1 nonimmignint visas to the United States.

How the case ended

Docket: No. 1:25-cv-00303
Filed: January 30, 2025
Ended: March 24, 2026
Suit's filing to its end: 418 days
How it ended: Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record: idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), 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 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.