Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of New York

Yafai v. Blinken

Eastern District of New YorkEdward R. KormanDecided August 26, 2026No. 1:24-cv-05748

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 USCIS Read by a model
Plaintiffs allege that both the denial of Ahmed’s visa and USCIS’s delay in adjudicating his Form I-601 application are driven by a broader scheme to “stymy and deny Yemeni visa applications” irrespective of their merit.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa); I-601 (waiver) Read by a model
Plaintiffs challenge the denial of Ahmed’s immigrant visa and the delay in adjudicating Ahmed’s Form I-601 application to have his grounds of ineligibility for admission waived.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs allege an APA claim for undue delay and request that the Court, pursuant to the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, order USCIS to adjudicate Ahmed’s waiver application “within 30 days.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety is GRANTED pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
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 the Complaint in its entirety is GRANTED pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants have moved to dismiss all of Plaintiffs’ claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety is GRANTED pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety is GRANTED pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ APA and mandamus claims related to Ahmed’s Form I-601 application is granted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss the APA and breach of contract claims related to the denial of Ahmed’s visa is granted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 12(b)(6).
Months pending 41.6 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Seeking to obtain such a waiver, Ahmed filed the appropriate Form I-601 application on March 10, 2023.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability applied Read by a model
Setting aside the dubious merits of this argument, this is precisely the kind of challenge that is precluded under the doctrine of consular nonreviewability.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-05748
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 22), deciding the motion (ECF 19)
Filed
August 16, 2024
Ended
August 27, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
741 days
How it ended
Ended, outcome not recorded
From the record
terminated; no disposition recorded

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why. Other suits in this court.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision, and the motion number is read from that entry's text. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

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.