Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of New York

Ullah v. Schrader

Eastern District of New YorkDora Lizette IrizarryDecided September 16, 2024No. 1:23-cv-06815

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
That same day, a consular officer refused the Applicant Plaintiffs’ visas pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 221(g) after concluding that additional documentation and security screening were required.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Thus, Plaintiffs ask this Court to compel adjudication of their visa applications.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Thus, Plaintiffs request that the Court compel adjudication of their visa applications, not question a final decision.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, leave to amend is denied as futile, and this case is dismissed in its entirety with prejudice.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
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, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, leave to amend is denied as futile, and this case is dismissed in its entirety with prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, leave to amend is denied as futile, and this case is dismissed in its entirety with prejudice.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, leave to amend is denied as futile, and this case is dismissed in its entirety with prejudice.
Months pending 25.8 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On July 25, 2022, the Applicant Plaintiffs were interviewed at the U.S. Embassy in Dhaka, Bangladesh.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability applied Read by a model
The Court need not address Defendants’ other arguments because the doctrine of consular nonreviewability bars judicial review of this case.
Nationality Bangladesh Read by a model
The Applicant Plaintiffs are citizens of Bangladesh.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
filed a form I-130 Petition for an Immediate Relative Visa

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-06815
Filed
September 13, 2023
Ended
September 17, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
370 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2024-09-16 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.

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.