Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Amjad v. Schofer

District of ColumbiaCarl J. NicholsDecided October 4, 2024No. 1:24-cv-01773

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
Amjad argues that consular officers at the U.S. Embassy in Pakistan impermissibly delayed in fulfilling that obligation because, after refusing his visa application, they placed it into a status called “administrative processing.”
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Muhammad Faisal Amjad, a Pakistani citizen, seeks to compel the conclusive adjudication of his immigrant visa application, of which his wife and son are derivative beneficiaries.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Amjad argues that consular officers at the U.S. Embassy in Pakistan impermissibly delayed in fulfilling that obligation because, after refusing his visa application, they placed it into a status called “administrative processing.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
It is hereby ORDERED that the government’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 6, is GRANTED
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
It is hereby ORDERED that the government’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 6, is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that Amjad’s claims are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The government moves to dismiss.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Amjad’s claims are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
It is hereby ORDERED that the government’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 6, is GRANTED;
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Amjad’s claims are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings No duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal Read by a model
Amjad thus cannot show that consular officers “committed a transparent violation of a clear duty to act” by placing his refused visa application in administrative processing—regardless of how long his application remains subject to such processing.
Nationality Pakistan Read by a model
Muhammad Faisal Amjad, a Pakistani citizen

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-01773
Filed
June 18, 2024
Ended
October 4, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
108 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
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 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.