Mandamus decisions / Middle District of North Carolina

SARHAN v. UNITED STATES CITIZENS & IMMIGRATION SERVICES

Middle District of North CarolinaTHOMAS D. SCHROEDERDecided December 22, 2023No. 1:23-cv-00657

Read the decision Original 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	USCIS Read by a model Plaintiff instituted this action by filing a pro se Complaint (Docket Entry 1), against United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), the Director of USCIS
Form or filing	I-129F (fiancé(e) petition) Read by a model “USCIS already fully adjudicated Plaintiff’s [petition for a nonimmigrant fiancée designation]”
What the suit asked for	Some other action Read by a model the First Preliminary Relief Motion asks the Court to “issue a writ of mandamus compelling the USCIS to immediately issue the fiancée visa”
Kind of order	A magistrate judge's recommendation Read by a model MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Motion decided	Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the First Motion for Preliminary Relief (Docket Entry 22) and the Second Motion for Preliminary Relief (Docket Entry 34) be denied.
Whose motion	The plaintiff's motion Read by a model Plaintiff’s Motion for Fiancée to Come to North Carolina Immediately
Disposition	Magistrate judge's recommendation A magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The district judge decides whether to adopt it, so it is not counted as either side's win. Read by a model MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Prevailing party	Neither side Read by a model MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The delay claim	Relief denied Read by a model IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the First Motion for Preliminary Relief (Docket Entry 22) and the Second Motion for Preliminary Relief (Docket Entry 34) be denied.
The other claims	Relief denied Read by a model Plaintiff has failed to establish entitlement to the preliminary injunctive/mandamus relief he has requested.
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	Consular nonreviewability applied; Held moot Read by a model As the Court remains “without jurisdiction to order an American consular official to issue a visa to [Plaintiff’s fiancée],”

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision. How decisions are grouped into cases.

Decision	Decided	Judge	Disposition
SARHAN v. UNITED STATES CITIZENS & IMMIGRATION SERVICESThis decision	December 22, 2023	THOMAS D. SCHROEDER	Magistrate judge's recommendation
SARHAN v. UNITED STATES CITIZENS & IMMIGRATION SERVICESThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted	March 26, 2024	THOMAS D. SCHROEDER	Dismissed

How the case ended

Docket: No. 1:23-cv-00657
Filed: August 7, 2023
Ended: March 26, 2024
Suit's filing to its end: 232 days
How it ended: Ended once the agency acted
From the record: idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant

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.

Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. 667

Supreme Court, June 26, 2018. Mandel's facially-legitimate-and-bona-fide standard governs constitutional challenges to entry restrictions, and a citation to a valid statutory ground ordinarily satisfies it.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Department of State v. Muñoz, 602 U.S. 899

Supreme Court, June 21, 2024. A U.S. citizen has no fundamental liberty interest in a noncitizen spouse's admission, so marriage alone entitles the citizen neither to Mandel review of the consular refusal nor to an explanation beyond the statutory citation.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753

Supreme Court, June 29, 1972. When a visa refusal burdens a U.S. citizen's own constitutional rights, courts ask only whether the Executive gave a facially legitimate and bona fide reason and do not look behind it.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55

Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Sesay v. United States, 984 F.3d 312

Fourth Circuit, January 5, 2021. Consular nonreviewability bars review of a relative's visa refusal; under Din and Trump v. Hawaii a valid statutory citation satisfies Mandel, and the court will not look behind it absent a particularized showing of bad faith.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 4 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-10-30; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
Gonzalez v. Cuccinelli, 985 F.3d 357

Fourth Circuit, January 14, 2021. Courts may review delay in placing U-visa petitioners on the waitlist under the TRAC factors and should not dismiss such claims at the pleading stage, but lack jurisdiction over delay in pre-waitlist work-permit requests, a point on which the Sixth Circuit disagrees.

ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Rejected in the Sixth Circuit by Barrios Garcia v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 25 F.4th 430 (2022).
Lovo v. Miller, 107 F.4th 199

Fourth Circuit, July 3, 2024. The 'decision or action' language of § 1182(a)(9)(B)(v), which the court treated as coextensive with § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), does not reach USCIS inaction, so a district court may hear a claim that USCIS unreasonably delayed a provisional unlawful-presence waiver.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 5 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-10-29; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.