Mandamus decisions / District of Connecticut
Adjei v. US Department of State
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
The petitions were approved by U.S. immigration authorities in August 2013, and forwarded to the National Visa Center (“NVC”) to prepare for adjudication by the Embassy. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
DS-260 (immigrant visa)
Read by a model
filed simultaneous immigrant visa applications for three of his adult, unmarried children living in Ghana |
| What the suit asked for |
Decide the application
Read by a model
It is not clear, short of ordering defendants to decide Mr. K. Saarah’s petition before any other, what relief the court can provide to rectify this alleged queue jumping issue |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 20) is granted. Plaintiffs’ Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. |
| Motion decided |
Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
Read by a model
Even if the doctrine does not pose a jurisdictional bar and preclusion of a claim under the doctrine is strictly a question of the sufficiency of the pleading under Rule 12(b)(6), see Gharedaghi, 2025 WL 2300763, at *4, plaintiffs fail to state a claim. |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
On February 12, 2025, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss plaintiffs’ Complaint. |
| Disposition |
Dismissed
The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness.
Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. |
| Prevailing party |
Government
Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 20) is granted. |
| The delay claim |
Dismissed
Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 20) is granted. Plaintiffs’ Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. |
| The other claims |
Dismissed
Read by a model
Thus, a claim based on due process fails to state a claim because of the doctrine of consular nonreviewability. |
| Months pending |
147 months from the application to the suit; 160.8 months from the application to the court's decision
Read by a model
In May 2012, Mr. E. Adjei, a naturalized U.S. citizen residing in East Hartford, Connecticut, filed simultaneous immigrant visa applications for three of his adult, unmarried children living in Ghana: his daughter Linda and his two sons Nathaniel and Kofi. |
| TRAC factors |
The court weighed the TRAC factors
With respect to the first factor, plaintiffs’ only pleading that defendants are not following a rule of reason is that defendants interviews were rescheduled due to COVID-19 related restrictions at the peak of the global pandemic. |
| The government's delay arguments |
Line-jumping accepted
Read by a model
The court lacks the power to order defendants to decide Mr. K. Saarah’s Petition over other applicants. |
| Threshold rulings |
Consular nonreviewability applied; APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails)
Read by a model
The doctrine bars claims seeking a court to compel adjudication of a visa application |
| I-130 category |
Family preference
Read by a model
In May 2012, Mr. E. Adjei, a naturalized U.S. citizen residing in East Hartford, Connecticut, filed simultaneous immigrant visa applications for three of his adult, unmarried children living in Ghana: his daughter Linda and his two sons Nathaniel and Kofi. |
Other orders in this case
The group holds 4 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adjei v. US Department of State | September 24, 2025 | Janet C. Hall | Dismissed |
| Adjei v. US Department of State | September 24, 2025 | Janet C. Hall | Dismissed |
| Adjei v. US Department of StateThis decision | October 9, 2025 | Janet C. Hall | Dismissed |
| Adjei v. US Department of StateThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted | October 9, 2025 | Janet C. Hall | Dismissed |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 3:24-cv-01311
- Filed
- August 14, 2024
- Ended
- September 26, 2025
- Suit's filing to its end
- 408 days
- How it ended
- Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
- From the record
- idb disp 17 (judgment: other), 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 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.