Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of New York

Algazali v. Blinken

Southern District of New YorkLorna G. SchofieldDecided January 31, 2025No. 1:23-cv-06038

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 Department of State Read by a model
On the same day, Defendants forwarded the record to the Embassy in Cairo, Egypt, so that it could process Suhail’s visa application.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
After Suhail filed her immigrant visa application, an interview was scheduled for March 5, 2023, at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
In their First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), Plaintiffs seek an order compelling Defendants to revoke the refusal of Plaintiffs’ immigrant visa application for Suhail and compelling Defendants to adjudicate it properly.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Government’s motion to dismiss the FAC for failure to state a claim is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss the FAC under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss the FAC under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 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
For the foregoing reasons, the Government’s motion to dismiss the FAC for failure to state a claim is GRANTED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Government’s motion to dismiss the FAC for failure to state a claim is GRANTED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Except for Algazali’s discrimination claim in Count Four, the claims in the FAC are dismissed with prejudice and without leave to replead, as each claim is subject to a legal infirmity that could not be cured with repleading.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Government’s motion to dismiss the FAC for failure to state a claim is GRANTED.
Months pending 4.3 months from the application to the suit; 22.9 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
After Suhail filed her immigrant visa application, an interview was scheduled for March 5, 2023, at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability applied; Mootness argument rejected Read by a model
These causes of action and related requests for relief are foreclosed by the doctrine of consular nonreviewability.
Nationality Yemen Read by a model
His wife, Suhail, is a Yemeni national residing in Cairo, Egypt.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Plaintiff Algazali is a U.S. citizen. His wife, Suhail, is a Yemeni national residing in Cairo, Egypt.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-06038
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 58)
Filed
July 13, 2023
Ended
February 18, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
586 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2025-01-31 dismisses for want of jurisdiction; 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.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision. 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.