Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of New York

Ahmed v. Bitter

Eastern District of New YorkNicholas G. GaraufisDecided January 2, 2024No. 1:23-cv-00189

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,996 written decisions from 2,731 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided November 12, 2026. Updated November 14, 2026 at 1:17 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 1,617 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,406 (87%), 1,039 of them in this group, measured November 14, 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
Plaintiff Asma Ahmed asks the court to compel the Defendants, State Department officials, to adjudicate an application for permanent resident status for her son, Ezra Ahmed Evan, who resides in Bangladesh.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiffs initial application, made on June 25, 2015, was for an F2A visa.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiff Asma Ahmed asks the court to compel the Defendants, State Department officials, to adjudicate an application for permanent resident status for her son, Ezra Ahmed Evan, who resides in Bangladesh.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The court therefore GRANTS the Government’s motion to dismiss.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
the court DENIES the Government’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), but GRANTS the Government’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs claims, in their entirety, under Rule 12(b) (6), without prejudice.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The Government has moved to dismiss Plaintiffs claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
GRANTS the Government’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs claims, in their entirety, under Rule 12(b) (6), without prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
GRANTS the Government’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs claims, in their entirety, under Rule 12(b) (6), without prejudice.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
In sum, Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged unreasonably delay in the adjudication of her visa application. The court therefore GRANTS the Government’s motion to dismiss.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
In sum, the court GRANTS the Government’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs due process claim.
Months pending 90.6 months from the application to the suit; 102.3 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiffs initial application, made on June 25, 2015, was for an F2A visa.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfarenot reached
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicednot reached
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
Without more, three years is not sufficient to show unreasonable delay in adjudicating a visa application.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping rejected; Visa availability accepted Read by a model
The Government has not pointed to any evidence that competing priorities led to the delay in the application, or even that Plaintiffs son would be jumping ahead of others in the line if the court compelled action on his application.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
Thus, the court finds that the doctrine of consular nonreviewability does not apply and therefore DENIES the Government’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
I-130 category Family preference Read by a model
Plaintiffs initial application, made on June 25, 2015, was for an F2A visa.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-00189
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 17)
Filed
January 11, 2023
Ended
November 26, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
685 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
stipulated dismissal 2024-11-25; idb disp 12 (dismissed: voluntarily)

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why. Other suits in this court.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

Supreme Court and Second 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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.