Buell et al v. United States Department of State et al

District of OregonJolie A. RussoDecided April 28, 2025No. 3:24-cv-01942

2,917 written decisions from 2,664 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 7:07 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 The Complaint seeks, inter alia, a writ of mandamus to compel the State Department to essentially re-adjudicate Valeryevna Buell’s visa application and alleges claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”).
Form or filing	221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model As the spouse of a U.S. citizen, Valeryevna Buell sought an immigrant visa that, if she met her legal burden and established her eligibility, would allow her to seek admission to the United States.
What the suit asked for	Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model Following the interview, the consular officer refused her visa application under Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 221(g), 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g), and referred it for administrative processing.
Kind of order	A magistrate judge's recommendation Read by a model This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
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 for lack of standing, and failure to state a claim. Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 7, at 11 (citing Fed. R. Civ P. 12(b)(1), (b)(6)).
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model Defendants move to dismiss for lack of standing, and failure to state a claim.
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 This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Prevailing party	Neither side Read by a model This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The delay claim	Dismissed Read by a model Because no amendment would alter the calculus regarding unreasonable delay at this time, the case is dismissed without leave to amend.
The other claims	Dismissed Read by a model Even if plaintiffs had defended and maintained this claim, it is dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Months pending	14 months from the application to the suit; 19.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model On September 21, 2023, Valeryevna Buell attended her immigrant visa interview.
TRAC factors	The court weighed the TRAC factors 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government 3. Human health and welfarenot reached 4. Competing prioritiesnot reached 5. Interests prejudicednot reached 6. No impropriety needednot reached Read by a model the Court concludes the first and second TRAC factors strongly favor defendants.
The government's delay arguments	Line-jumping accepted Read by a model To weigh these alleged harms too heavily would prioritize the emotional separation harms of one party in the visa application queue over the same harms suffered by others waiting in the same line.
Threshold rulings	Consular nonreviewability rejected; Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found Read by a model The doctrine of consular non-reviewability does not preclude the Court from reviewing the timeliness of the adjudication of Buell’s visa application.
Nationality	Russia Read by a model Plaintiff Adam Buell, a U.S. citizen, is married to Valeryevna Buell, a citizen and national of Russia.
I-130 category	Immediate relative Read by a model As the spouse of a U.S. citizen, Valeryevna Buell sought an immigrant visa that, if she met her legal burden and established her eligibility, would allow her to seek admission to the United States.

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision. How decisions are grouped into cases.

Decision	Decided	Judge	Disposition
Buell et al v. United States Department of State et alThis decision	April 28, 2025	Jolie A. Russo	Magistrate judge's recommendation
Buell v. United States Department of StateThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted	June 12, 2025	Jolie A. Russo	Dismissed

How the case ended

Docket: No. 3:24-cv-01942
Filed: November 20, 2024
Ended: June 12, 2025
Suit's filing to its end: 204 days
How it ended: Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record: order 2025-06-12 dismisses on the TRAC factors

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 Ninth 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.

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
Allen v. Milas, 896 F.3d 1094

Ninth Circuit, July 24, 2018. The APA provides no avenue for review of a consular visa refusal beyond Mandel's facially-legitimate-and-bona-fide inquiry, and consular nonreviewability is not a jurisdictional bar.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 8 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-10-31; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
Sanchez Gonzalez v. United States Department of State, No. 23-4205 (9th Cir. Apr. 30, 2026)

Ninth Circuit, April 30, 2026. After Muñoz, a citizen spouse's own First Amendment interest triggered Mandel review, which a facially legitimate and bona fide reason satisfied absent a showing of bad faith.

ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-10-18; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law.
Independence Mining Co. v. Babbitt, 105 F.3d 502

Ninth Circuit, January 23, 1997. Mandamus and APA § 706(1) claims to compel delayed agency action are analyzed alike under the TRAC factors.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Vaz v. Neal, 33 F.4th 1131

Ninth Circuit, May 9, 2022. Section 706(1) compels only a clear, mandatory and discrete duty that has been unreasonably delayed under TRAC, and the APA's prerequisites go to the merits while § 1331 supplies jurisdiction.

ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-11-03; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law. The citation index lists 144 other decisions citing it, none a Supreme Court, BIA or Attorney General precedent or a published circuit opinion; ImmCite's status does not review them.