Passim

Mandamus decisions / Middle District of North Carolina

ASLAM v. HELLER

Middle District of North CarolinaCATHERINE C. EAGLESDecided July 23, 2024No. 1:23-cv-00971

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
In March 2023, Plaintiff’s husband, Hamza Iftikhar, was interviewed by the U.S. Consulate General in Guangzhong[, China,] in connection with the case.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Defendants’ failure to adjudicate Plaintiff’s I-130-based visa application
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Plaintiff seeks an order mandating that Defendants process her husband’s visa application within 15 calendar days of the Court’s order or as soon as reasonably practicable, as well as an award of attorney’s fees and costs.
Kind of order A magistrate judge's recommendation Read by a model
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff has failed to establish subject-matter jurisdiction, warranting dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
the Motion to Dismiss (Docket Entry 5) filed by Lisa Heller, David Meale, and Antony Blinken (collectively, the “Defendants”).
Disposition Magistrate judge's recommendation A magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The district judge decides whether to adopt it, so it is not counted as either side's win. Read by a model
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the instant Motion (Docket Entry 5) be granted, and that the Complaint (Docket Entry 1) be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, a dismissal of the statutory claim(s) necessarily defeats the constitutional claim.
Months pending 8 months from the application to the suit; 16.3 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
In March 2023, Plaintiff’s husband, Hamza Iftikhar, was interviewed by the U.S. Consulate General in Guangzhong[, China,] in connection with the case.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings No duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal Read by a model
visa application for administrative processing under Section 221(g), the Court cannot compel further action on Plaintiff’s husband’s visa application. As a result, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
a[n] [I-130 immediate family member reunification] visa petition for her husband, Hamza Iftikhar.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-00971
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 11)
Filed
November 12, 2023
Ended
August 20, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
282 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2024-07-23 dismisses for want of jurisdiction; 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.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.