Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Virginia

Haddad v. Callahan

Eastern District of VirginiaClaude M. HiltonDecided August 4, 2025No. 1:24-cv-02289

Read the decision Original 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	Department of State Read by a model As just described, the State Department does not have a "clear duty" to take any particular action here, so there is no jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claim for mandamus.
Form or filing	221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model At the interview, the visa applicant executes her or his visa application, which in this case is the DS-160, Online Nonimmigrant Visa Application, in the presence of the consular officer.
What the suit asked for	Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model On December 16, 2024, Plaintiffs filed this civil action requesting that this Court compel Defendants to provide a "final adjudication" of Plaintiffs' K-1 nonimmigrant visa applications.
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b} (1) is GRANTED;
Motion decided	Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b} (1) is GRANTED;
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model On February 18, 2025, Defendants filed their Motions to Dismiss and Motion to Sever Plaintiffs and/or Plaintiffs' Claims.
Disposition	Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b} (1) is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that this case is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Prevailing party	Government Read by a model Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b} (1) is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that this case is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The delay claim	Dismissed Read by a model ORDERED that this case is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Months pending	Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors	The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings	No duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal Read by a model Because Defendants have fulfilled their clear non discretionary duty to act since it has, indeed, issued a refusal, this Court has no jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' APA claims.

How the case ended

Docket: No. 1:24-cv-02289
Filed: December 16, 2024
Ended: August 4, 2025
Suit's filing to its end: 231 days
How it ended: Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record: idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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 14, 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 2026-11-13; 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 2026-11-07; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.