Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Maryland

Ishaq v. Schofer

District of MarylandTimothy J. SullivanDecided August 8, 2024No. 8:24-cv-00207

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
In July 2023, a consular officer at the United States Embassy in Pakistan interviewed Ms. Ul Ain.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
The consular officer issued a “refusal” of Ms. Ul Ain’s visa application under INA § 221(g).
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Alternatively, even if Mr. Ishaq had established that Defendants have a clear nondiscretionary duty to act on Ms. Ul Ain’s visa petition, Mr. Ishaq still fails to state a claim because adjudication of the visa petition is not “unreasonably delayed” under the APA.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, Defendant’s Motion (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims, arguing that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and that the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
the Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”) (ECF No. 8) filed by Defendants Andrew Schofer and Antony Blinken
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, Defendant’s Motion (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, Defendant’s Motion (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Mr. Ishaq’s claims under the Mandamus Act and the APA. The Motion is granted as to those claims.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
For these reasons, Mr. Ishaq’s due process claim fails, and the Motion will be granted as to this claim.
Months pending 12.8 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
In July 2023, a consular officer at the United States Embassy in Pakistan interviewed Ms. Ul Ain.
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 two TRAC factors weigh in Defendants’ favor.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Expediting Ms. Ul Ain’s visa application would simply reorder the queue of those waiting for visa adjudication. This factor weighs in favor of Defendants.
Threshold rulings No duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal Read by a model
None of the statutory provisions relied upon by Mr. Ishaq create a clear nondiscretionary duty for Defendants to act.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
This merely requires that Ms. Ul Ain be documented as an immediate relative of Mr. Ishaq.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 8:24-cv-00207
Filed
January 22, 2024
Ended
August 8, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
199 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 3 (dismissed: lack of jurisdiction)

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.