Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Maryland

Feng v. United States Department of State

District of MarylandErin AslanDecided October 27, 2026No. 1:26-cv-00993

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
On September 8, 2025, the State Department interviewed Mr. Feng and Ms. Zhou in connection with their visa applications.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
they seek relief with respect to their non-immigrant visa applications
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Plaintiffs ask that the Court issue a writ of mandamus that compels the State Department 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, the State Department’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint is granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
The State Department argues that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ APA claim and, alternatively, that both counts of the Complaint fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Pending before the Court is the State Department’s motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment.
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 State Department’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint is granted.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the State Department’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint is granted.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ APA claim must therefore be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Finally, Mr. Feng and Ms. Zhou have not plausibly alleged a due process claim.
Months pending 6 months from the application to the suit; 13.6 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On September 8, 2025, the State Department interviewed Mr. Feng and Ms. Zhou in connection with their visa applications.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
The approximately 13-month delay in this matter is therefore not unreasonable under TRAC’s first two factors under this comparative approach.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Because “granting plaintiffs’ request to expedite would necessarily mean additional delays for other applicants – many of whom undoubtedly face hardships of their own,” courts often find this factor to categorically weigh in favor of the government.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability applied; No duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal Read by a model
The doctrine of consular non-reviewability also precludes relief.
Nationality China Read by a model
Mr. Feng and Ms. Zhou are citizens of the People’s Republic of China.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:26-cv-00993
Filed
March 9, 2026
Status
Pending as of the last docket check

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.