Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of New York

Chowdhury v. United States Department of State

Western District of New YorkJohn Leonard Sinatra Jr.Decided May 14, 2026No. 1:25-cv-01174

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
First, she alleges that the failure of the U.S. Embassy in Dhaka to make a final determination of her husband’s I-130 immigrant visa application constitutes an unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
First, she alleges that the failure of the U.S. Embassy in Dhaka to make a final determination of her husband’s I-130 immigrant visa application constitutes an unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
She also seeks three writs of mandamus to compel Defendants: (1) “to promptly complete all administrative processing within sixty days;”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
As a result, it is proper for this Court to construe Defendants’ motion as one under Rule 12(b)(1).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants have moved to dismiss Plaintiffs claims.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Plaintiff's case is moot because she has, in fact, received a final decision on her husband’s visa application.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Plaintiff's case is moot because she has, in fact, received a final decision on her husband’s visa application.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Plaintiff's case is moot because she has, in fact, received a final decision on her husband’s visa application.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiff lacks standing to bring her due process claim because she did not list her husband as a plaintiff.
Months pending 0 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
May 19, 2025. Id. at 4 J{ 15-16. Following the interview, his application was Case 1:25-cv-01174-JLS Document9 _ Filed 05/14/26 Page 4of9 placed in “administrative processing.”
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Plaintiff's case is moot because she has, in fact, received a final decision on her husband’s visa application.
Nationality Bangladesh Read by a model
her husband, Md Rubel Ahmed, is a citizen of Bangladesh.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Plaintiff Jannat Chowdhury is a U.S. citizen, and her husband, Md Rubel Ahmed, is a citizen of Bangladesh.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-01174
Filed
November 13, 2025
Ended
May 14, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
182 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 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.