Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Delaware

Zhang v. Rubio

District of DelawareEleanor G. TennysonDecided October 2, 2026No. 1:26-cv-00716

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
On December 1, 2025, Plaintiff Zhang appeared for her visa interview at the U.S. Consulate General in Wuhan, China and applied to renew her H-1B visa.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
her non-immigrant visa application but nonetheless “refused” her application under Section 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g), for “administrative processing.”
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
ask the Court to compel Defendants to “complete the administrative processing and render a decision within a reasonable time.”
Kind of order A magistrate judge's recommendation Read by a model
ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
On August 24, 2026, Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On August 24, 2026, Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Disposition Magistrate judge's recommendation A magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The district judge decides whether to adopt it, so it is not counted as either side's win. Read by a model
ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
the Court recommends that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (D.I. 8) be GRANTED and the Complaint be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Months pending 6.5 months from the application to the suit; 10 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On December 1, 2025, Plaintiff Zhang appeared for her visa interview at the U.S. Consulate General in Wuhan, China and applied to renew her H-1B visa.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
[T]he predicament is not unique and the Court cannot expedite Plaintiffs’ visa application over other similarly situated applicants.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found Read by a model
The Court thus recommends that Defendants’ motion to dismiss be denied as it relates to the doctrine of consular non-reviewability.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:26-cv-00716
Filed
June 18, 2026
Ended
October 14, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
118 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
stipulated dismissal 2026-10-14

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 Third 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.