Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Virginia

Muhammad v. Noem

Eastern District of VirginiaLeonie M. BrinkemaDecided June 30, 2026No. 1:25-cv-01643

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
Since then, Akmal has been interviewed twice, and a consular officer refused to issue Akmal an immigration visa both times.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa); I-130 (relative petition) Read by a model
On October 16, 2022, Muhammad, a U.S. citizen, filed an 1-130, Petition for Alien Relative, on behalf of his mother, in order for her to obtain an immigrant visa.
What the suit asked for Schedule an interview Read by a model
Plaintiffs Muhammad and Akmal filed this civil action seeking an order from the Court to compel defendants to schedule Akmal for an interview on her pending application for an immigration visa.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons explained below, defendants’ Motion, [Dkt. No. 11], will be granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Before the Court is defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (“Motion”), which requests that the Court dismiss plaintiffs’ claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (“Motion”), which requests that the Court dismiss plaintiffs’ claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion argues that plaintiffs’ Complaint must be dismissed because it is mooted by defendants’ adjudication of Akmal’s visa application. [Dkt. No. 12] at 3-4. This Court agrees.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
the litigation is moot and the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to proceed any further.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion argues that plaintiffs’ Complaint must be dismissed because it is mooted by defendants’ adjudication of Akmal’s visa application. [Dkt. No. 12] at 3-4. This Court agrees.
Months pending 35.5 months from the application to the suit; 40.4 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
On February 26, 2026, “[d]efendants re-adjudicated [pjlaintiffs’ application and ‘[a] consular officer [] refuse[d] [to issue] the visa[.]’”
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion argues that plaintiffs’ Complaint must be dismissed because it is mooted by defendants’ adjudication of Akmal’s visa application. [Dkt. No. 12] at 3-4. This Court agrees.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
On October 16, 2022, Muhammad, a U.S. citizen, filed an 1-130, Petition for Alien Relative, on behalf of his mother, in order for her to obtain an immigrant visa.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-01643
Filed
September 30, 2025
Ended
June 30, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
273 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 3 (dismissed: lack of jurisdiction)

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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.