Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Sayad v. United States Department of Homeland Security

District of ColumbiaTanya S. ChutkanDecided September 12, 2022

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
State Department officials interviewed Mr. Sayad on October 2, 2019, but according to Plaintiff, the agency delayed final decision on the visa application due to security concerns under USCIS’ “Controlled Application Review and Resolution Program” (“CARRP”).
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
were unlawfully withholding and delaying adjudication of a spousal visa application for her husband
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiff claims that Defendants “have refused to adjudicate Plaintiff’s application and to issue the requested visa application,”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons explained above, the court will GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 6.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s lawsuit, arguing that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s lawsuit, arguing that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
Therefore, Plaintiff’s APA and due process claims, both of which challenged a withholding and delay that Defendants have since remedied, are moot.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
Therefore, Plaintiff’s APA and due process claims, both of which challenged a withholding and delay that Defendants have since remedied, are moot.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Therefore, Plaintiff’s APA and due process claims, both of which challenged a withholding and delay that Defendants have since remedied, are moot.
The other claims Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Therefore, Plaintiff’s APA and due process claims, both of which challenged a withholding and delay that Defendants have since remedied, are moot.
Months pending Not stated at filing The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Therefore, Plaintiff’s APA and due process claims, both of which challenged a withholding and delay that Defendants have since remedied, are moot.
Nationality Algeria Read by a model
Plaintiff Sonya Sayad is a United States citizen whose husband, an Algerian citizen, resides in Algeria.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
On May 27, 2018, Plaintiff, who is a U.S. citizen, filed an I-130 petition for a spousal visa for her husband, Nabil Sayad.

How the case ended

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

Supreme Court and D.C. 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.