Mandamus decisions / Southern District of New York
Belegrinos v. United States
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
His Amended Complaint may also be construed liberally as seeking an order that the State Department issue him a CLN. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
DS-4079; DS-4081
Read by a model
“Request for Determination of Possible Loss of United States Citizenship” (“Form DS-4079”) |
| What the suit asked for |
Some other action
Read by a model
His Amended Complaint may also be construed liberally as seeking an order that the State Department issue him a CLN. |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Government’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. |
| Motion decided |
Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
Read by a model
Thereafter, the Government filed a new motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
The Government has moved to dismiss Belegrinos’s operative Amended Complaint. |
| Disposition |
Dismissed
The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness.
Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Government’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. |
| Prevailing party |
Government
Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Government’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. |
| The delay claim |
Dismissed
Read by a model
Belegrinos’s claims under the Mandamus Act or 5 U.S.C. § 706(1) must be dismissed for the same reasons discussed in the relevant sections. |
| The other claims |
Dismissed
Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Government’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. |
| Months pending |
44 months from the application to the suit; 58.2 months from the application to the court's decision
Read by a model
In early 2014, Belegrinos, through his counsel Robinson Iglesias, requested a certificate of loss of nationality (“CLN”) from the United States Department of State (“State Department”). |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings | None Read by a model |
| Nationality |
United States
Read by a model
Belegrinos is a citizen of the United States by birth. |
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 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 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
-
American Academy of Religion v. Napolitano, 573 F.3d 115
Second Circuit, July 17, 2009. Where a visa refusal implicates U.S. citizens' First Amendment rights, Mandel review applies: the government must identify a properly construed statutory ground and the officer's reason to believe it applies, and the applicant must have a chance to rebut a knowing material-support charge.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 4 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.
-
Chen v. Rubio, 158 F.4th 393
Second Circuit, October 29, 2025. After Muñoz, consular nonreviewability insulates relatives' visa refusals from a citizen sponsor's challenge, and the claims were properly dismissed with prejudice.
ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-10-29; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law. The citation index lists 7 other decisions citing it, none a Supreme Court, BIA or Attorney General precedent or a published circuit opinion; ImmCite's status does not review them.