Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Pennsylvania

SHAQRAN v. BLINKEN

Eastern District of PennsylvaniaWENDY BEETLESTONEDecided June 27, 2024No. 2:23-cv-01406

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
As discussed in Part II.B, supra, the State Department denies having ever received Shaqran’s administrative claims for damages, and he has not met his burden of establishing otherwise.
Form or filing SF-95 Read by a model
Shaqran, meanwhile, seeks an order directing “that the Defendants follow their own policies and adjudicate the SF-95 as to Plaintiffs Malek, Nusaibah and Shaymaa as permitted under 22 U.S.C. 2669-1.”
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
In their Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs seek: (1) a writ of mandamus ordering Defendants to return Mozayid’s expired United States passport and to issue him a one-way travel document to return to the United States;
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ motion will be granted, and this matter will be dismissed.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Other motion to dismiss Read by a model
dismiss Mozayid and Senan’s claims for improper venue; and, (3) dismiss the remaining claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants’ motion will be granted, and this matter will be dismissed.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
And because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ remaining claims, Defendants’ motion will be granted, and this matter will be dismissed.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
And because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ remaining claims, Defendants’ motion will be granted, and this matter will be dismissed.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Here, because Plaintiffs have failed to make out these elements, their mandamus claims must be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
And because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ remaining claims, Defendants’ motion will be granted, and this matter will be dismissed.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality United States Read by a model
the three Shaqran children were nationals and citizens of the United States upon their birth.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Also after this lawsuit was filed, Defendants agreed to schedule a direct filing appointment for I-130 Petition for Alien Relative by Mozayid on behalf of his wife, Dhaninah Senan, who is a Yemeni citizen, at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:23-cv-01406
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 38)
Filed
April 12, 2023
Ended
June 27, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
442 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2024-06-27 dismisses for want of jurisdiction; idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why.

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 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.