Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of New York

Bibi v. Bitter

Eastern District of New YorkLaShann DeArcy HallDecided September 30, 2024No. 1:23-cv-07214

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
The U.S. Embassy responded it was in the process of re-opening previously frozen and temporarily refused cases.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Given the statutory limits set by Congress, there are no visa numbers available for F2B applicants with Aaiza’s May 16, 2016 priority date, and her visa application would remain “refused” under INA § 221(g).
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
the relief she seeks—an order directing adjudication of Aaiza’s visa application, which is currently “refused”—would result in an outright grant or denial of a visa.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claim must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants move pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) to dismiss all of Plaintiff’s claims.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint is GRANTED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint is GRANTED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claim must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for a writ of mandamus compelling Defendants to issue a visa or adjust Aaiza’s visa category is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Months pending 60.9 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On August 5, 2019, Plaintiff’s attorney received a notice that Aaiza’s visa interview was scheduled for September 3, 2019.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
The government's delay arguments Visa availability accepted Read by a model
Given the statutory limits set by Congress, there are no visa numbers available for F2B applicants with Aaiza’s May 16, 2016 priority date, and her visa application would remain “refused” under INA § 221(g).
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
212(f) proclamation Proclamation 10014 Read by a model
On February 8, 2021, after Plaintiff emailed the U.S. Embassy requesting a status update, NVC responded that Aaiza’s visa application was refused in accordance with Presidential Proclamation 10014
I-130 category Family preference Read by a model
Aaiza’s visa category as F2A, which designates LPRs’ spouses and unmarried children under age 21.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-07214
Filed
September 28, 2023
Ended
September 30, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
368 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.