Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Al-Shakliah v. Rubio

District of ColumbiaJames E. BoasbergDecided May 11, 2026No. 1:25-cv-03870

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
They allege that, although their visas were approved and issued before Proclamation 10,949 took effect, State delayed returning their passports and treated the Proclamation as a basis to revoke and refuse the visas under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f).
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Al-Shakliah then applied for the immigrant visa through consular processing, with his wife and children as derivative beneficiaries.
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
Plaintiffs ask the Court to compel the Department to “adjudicate visa applications and issue visas” to them.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The Motion will therefore be granted in part and denied in part.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendant now moves to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendant now moves to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
These counts will accordingly be dismissed as barred by consular nonreviewability.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
These counts will accordingly be dismissed as barred by consular nonreviewability.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
These counts will accordingly be dismissed as barred by consular nonreviewability.
The other claims Some dismissed, some go on Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Defendant’s Motion as to Counts II, V, VI, VII, and VIII, as well as to the case-specific theories in Count I. It will deny the Motion as to Counts III and IV and as to Count I’s policy challenge.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability applied; Consular nonreviewability rejected Read by a model
These counts will accordingly be dismissed as barred by consular nonreviewability.
Nationality Yemen Read by a model
The Al-Shakliah family — Nasser Al-Shakliah, his wife Arzaq Saleh, and their four minor children — are Yemeni nationals.
212(f) proclamation Proclamation 10949 Read by a model
Last June, the President issued Proclamation 10,949 to restrict the entry of nationals from twelve countries, including Yemen and Sudan. With that barrier in place, consular officers canceled Plaintiffs’ visas and refused their underlying applications.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-03870
Filed
November 6, 2025
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 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.