Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Virginia

Yousufzai v. Garland

Eastern District of VirginiaMichael S NachmanoffDecided June 27, 2023

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
In August 2018, Plaintiff received an email from the U.S. Embassy in Afghanistan informing her that her parents’ visa petitions had been refused for administrative processing to ensure “applicants are both qualified for a visa and do not pose a security risk to the United States.”
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
In her original Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that the Government owed her a duty to process Mr. Yousufzai’s immigrant visa in a timely fashion, and that their unreasonable delay entitles her to relief .
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
As relief, Plaintiff asks the Court to compel the Defendants to process Mr. Yousufzai’s visa application and transfer it to the U.S. Consulate in Pakistan (like her mother’s had been).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 11) is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
The Court may grant a motion to dismiss under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, when it does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On March 14, 2023, the Government moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 11) is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 11) is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 11) is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED.
Months pending 69.4 months from the application to the suit; 75.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
where both of Plaintiff’s parents were interviewed in March 2017.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability applied Read by a model
Therefore, this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to review Defendants’ decision to refuse Mr. Yousufzai’s visa application.
Nationality Pakistan Read by a model
both her parents (who are citizens of Pakistan)
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Plaintiff is a naturalized citizen of the United States. Am. Compl. ¶ 10. And in February 2016, she filed Immigrant Visa Petitions on behalf of both her parents (who are citizens of Pakistan).

How the case ended

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.