Mandamus decisions / District of New Hampshire

Aya Raouf v. P U.S. Department of State, et al.

District of New HampshireLandya McCaffertyDecided November 20, 2023No. 1:23-cv-00302

Read the decision Original 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 Raouf asks not for the Secretary of State to grant Al Sammarraie a visa; she asks only that he carry out his agency’s duty to issue a timely adjudication of the visa application at issue.
Form or filing	DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model Raouf alleges that defendants’ unreasonable delay in issuing a final adjudication with respect to Al Sammarraie’s visa application violates 5 U.S.C. § 555(b), entitling her to mandamus relief.
What the suit asked for	Decide the application Read by a model Raouf asks not for the Secretary of State to grant Al Sammarraie a visa; she asks only that he carry out his agency’s duty to issue a timely adjudication of the visa application at issue.
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model Defendants’ motion to dismiss (doc. no. 10) is granted in part and denied in part.
Motion decided	Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model Although defendants purport to bring their motion under Rule 12(b)(6), two of the grounds upon which they seek dismissal at least arguably should be evaluated under Rule 12(b)(1).
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model Presently before the court is defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (doc. no. 10).
Disposition	Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model The court therefore denies defendants’ motion to dismiss with respect to Raouf’s unreasonable delay claim.
Prevailing party	Each side in part Read by a model The court therefore denies defendants’ motion to dismiss with respect to Raouf’s unreasonable delay claim.
The delay claim	The delay claim goes on Read by a model The court therefore denies defendants’ motion to dismiss with respect to Raouf’s unreasonable delay claim.
The other claims	Dismissed Read by a model It is granted with respect to Raouf’s due process claim (Count II).
Months pending	9.4 months from the application to the suit; 14.9 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model The Embassy scheduled Al Sammarraie’s visa interview for August 23, 2022. Al Sammarraie attended the interview and applied for a visa.
TRAC factors	The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings	Consular nonreviewability rejected; Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found Read by a model Given that defendants do not appear to argue that consular officers lack a nondiscretionary duty to act on visa applications, the court rejects defendants’ argument for dismissal on the basis of consular nonreviewability.
Nationality	Iraq Read by a model Raouf’s spouse, Abdullah A. Al Sammarraie, is an Iraqi citizen residing in the United Arab Emirates.
I-130 category	Immediate relative Read by a model Raouf filed a petition with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) on April 6, 2020, asking to have Al Sammarraie classified as her immediate relative.

How the case ended

Docket: No. 1:23-cv-00302
Filed: June 6, 2023
Ended: May 30, 2024
Suit's filing to its end: 359 days
How it ended: Ended once the agency acted
From the record: voluntary dismissal 2024-05-14; idb disp 12 (dismissed: voluntarily)

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 First 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.

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
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
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
Adams v. Baker, 909 F.2d 643

First Circuit, July 26, 1990. A visa denial stands under Mandel where the government states a facially legitimate and bona fide reason, and the court will not weigh the evidence behind it.

ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Clarified (jurisdictional description superseded by Muñoz), as recognized in Teles De Menezes v. Rubio, 156 F.4th 1 (2025).
Teles De Menezes v. Rubio, 156 F.4th 1

First Circuit, September 18, 2025. After Muñoz, consular nonreviewability is a merits defense rather than a jurisdictional bar, and it does not reach a challenge to the State Department's reclassification of an approved petition as opposed to a visa refusal.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 2 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-10-31; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
Towns of Wellesley, Concord & Norwood v. FERC, 829 F.2d 275

First Circuit, September 25, 1987. The First Circuit applies the TRAC factors when asked to compel agency action that has been unreasonably delayed.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Patel v. Jaddou, 118 F.4th 475

First Circuit, October 16, 2024. Assuming statutory jurisdiction, § 1255(a) does not forbid USCIS from holding adjustment applications until a visa number is immediately available, so no § 706(1) claim lies against the abeyance policy; the Fourth Circuit rejects deciding the merits before the § 1252(a)(2)(B) question.

ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Reasoning rejected in the Fourth Circuit by Lolakshi Kale v. Angelica Alfonso-Royals, 139 F.4th 329 (2025).