Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Connecticut

Khan v. United States Department of State

District of ConnecticutJanet C. HallDecided March 22, 2024No. 3:23-cv-00093

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
An order from this court pushing Ms. Khan’s visa case forward, at least in light of the significant and welldocumented COVID-induced backlog, would impact the State Department’s ability to determine its priorities.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
In turn, the plaintiff seeks various forms of relief regarding CARRP, including a judgment that CARRP violates the INA and APA; an injunction to prevent defendants from applying CARRP to Ms. Khan’s visa application; and an order rescinding CARRP.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Issuing an order compelling adjudication of Ms. Khan’s visa, and thereby “moving [her] to the front of the queue”, would constitute, in this court’s view, interference with the visa-issuance process.
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. 11) is granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 11) is granted.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On April 10, 2023, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Mr. Khan’s Complaint.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
The plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed without prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 11) is granted.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Count One of plaintiff’s Complaint is therefore granted and Count One is dismissed without prejudice.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
The defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Count Two of plaintiff’s Complaint is granted and Count Two is dismissed.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
the first, second, and fourth factors weigh decisively in favor of the defendants, which would foreclose plaintiff’s unreasonable delay claim as pled.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
As other courts have held, the government applies a “rule of reason” to visa applications by adjudicating them in the order they were filed.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability applied Read by a model
The court therefore concludes that, under existing Second Circuit case law, the doctrine of consular nonreviewability bars its review of plaintiff’s unreasonable delay claim under the APA and Mandamus Act.
Nationality Pakistan Read by a model
who is a citizen of Pakistan.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:23-cv-00093
Filed
January 25, 2023
Ended
March 25, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
425 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
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 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.