Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Pennsylvania
MYSLIMI v. BIDEN
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
They seek a writ of mandamus ordering the State Department to process their applications. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
DS-260 (immigrant visa)
Read by a model
Albanian citizens are suing federal officers asking we order the United States to immediately process their application for Immigrant Visas awaiting action since Summer 2020. |
| What the suit asked for |
Decide the application
Read by a model
They seek a writ of mandamus ordering the State Department to process their applications. |
| Kind of order |
A transfer order
Read by a model
We grant the United States’ motion to transfer to the proper venue in the District of Columbia. |
| Motion decided |
Transfer
Read by a model
We grant the United States’ motion to transfer to the proper venue in the District of Columbia. |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
The federal officers moved to transfer venue to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, arguing the Myslimis failed to plead venue in our District. |
| Disposition |
Transferred to another court
An order moving the case to another court. It decides where the suit is heard, not who wins, so it is not counted as either side's win.
Read by a model
We grant the United States’ motion to transfer to the proper venue in the District of Columbia. |
| Prevailing party |
Neither side
Read by a model
We grant the United States’ motion to transfer to the proper venue in the District of Columbia. |
| The delay claim |
Not decided here
Read by a model
We transfer this action to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. |
| Months pending |
13.4 months from the application to the court's decision
Read by a model
Ms. Myslimi—and her husband, Gramos Myslimi, and her son, Orges Myslimi—applied to the Center around August 3, 2020. |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings | None Read by a model |
| Nationality |
Albania
Read by a model
The State Department selected Mimoza Myslimi, an Albanian citizen, for a Diversity Visa on June 6, 2020. |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 2:21-cv-03769
- Filed
- August 24, 2021
- Ended
- September 16, 2021
- Suit's filing to its end
- 23 days
- How it ended
- Transferred
- From the record
- idb disp 0 (transferred to another district)
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 Third 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.
-
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
-
Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers Union v. OSHA, 145 F.3d 120
Third Circuit, March 16, 1998. The Third Circuit weighs the TRAC factors in deciding whether to compel agency action that has been unreasonably delayed.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read the one published decision citing this case, as of 2026-11-03; it does not treat the case adversely. That describes that decision; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
-
Geda v. Director, USCIS, 126 F.4th 835
Third Circuit, January 23, 2025. Section 1255(a) commits both the adjustment decision and the process and pace for reaching it to the Secretary's discretion, so § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) strips district courts of jurisdiction over challenges to USCIS's adjudication hold policy and § 1252(a)(2)(D) does not restore it.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance