Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Connecticut

Adjei v. US Department of State

District of ConnecticutJanet C. HallDecided October 9, 2025No. 3:24-cv-01311

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
With respect to the second factor, there is no statutory deadline by which consular officers must adjudicate a visa application, and plaintiffs do not plead as such.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
In May 2012, Mr. E. Adjei, a naturalized U.S. citizen residing in East Hartford, Connecticut, filed simultaneous immigrant visa applications for three of his adult, unmarried children living in Ghana: his daughter Linda and his two sons Nathaniel and Kofi.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs claim that defendants unduly delayed processing Mr. K. Saarah’s request for an immigrant visa, thereby violating plaintiffs’ statutory right to adjudication within a reasonable time frame under the APA and necessitating relief under the Mandamus Act.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 20) is granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Even if the doctrine does not pose a jurisdictional bar and preclusion of a claim under the doctrine is strictly a question of the sufficiency of the pleading under Rule 12(b)(6), see Gharedaghi, 2025 WL 2300763, at *4, plaintiffs fail to state a claim.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On February 12, 2025, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss plaintiffs’ Complaint.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 20) is granted. Plaintiffs’ Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Thus, a claim based on due process fails to state a claim because of the doctrine of consular nonreviewability.
Months pending 147 months from the application to the suit; 160.8 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
In May 2012, Mr. E. Adjei, a naturalized U.S. citizen residing in East Hartford, Connecticut, filed simultaneous immigrant visa applications for three of his adult, unmarried children living in Ghana: his daughter Linda and his two sons Nathaniel and Kofi.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfareneutral
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedneutral
  • 6. No impropriety neededfavors the government
Read by a model
With respect to the first factor, plaintiffs’ only pleading that defendants are not following a rule of reason is that defendants interviews were rescheduled due to COVID-19 related restrictions at the peak of the global pandemic.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
The court lacks the power to order defendants to decide Mr. K. Saarah’s Petition over other applicants.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability applied; APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
The doctrine bars claims seeking a court to compel adjudication of a visa application—whether it does so because it deprives the court of jurisdiction or because it deprives plaintiffs’ claim of legal recognition is irrelevant to the ultimate disposition of this case at the motion to dismiss stage.
I-130 category Family preference Read by a model
In May 2012, Mr. E. Adjei, a naturalized U.S. citizen residing in East Hartford, Connecticut, filed simultaneous immigrant visa applications for three of his adult, unmarried children living in Ghana: his daughter Linda and his two sons Nathaniel and Kofi.

Other orders in this case

The group holds 4 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision, this one. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
Adjei v. US Department of State September 24, 2025 Janet C. Hall Dismissed
Adjei v. US Department of State September 24, 2025 Janet C. Hall Dismissed
Adjei v. US Department of State October 9, 2025 Janet C. Hall Dismissed
Adjei v. US Department of StateThis decisionThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted October 9, 2025 Janet C. Hall Dismissed

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:24-cv-01311
Filed
August 14, 2024
Ended
September 26, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
408 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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.