Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Wisconsin

Pinnaka v. United States of America

Eastern District of WisconsinNancy JosephDecided September 20, 2024No. 2:24-cv-00086

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
On August 9, 2023, Plaintiffs submitted to the U.S. Consulate General Kolkata an application to waive the inadmissibility finding and for Pinnaka to be issued an H-4 visa as the spouse of Kurapati, an H1-B visa holder.
Form or filing DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
On August 9, 2023, Plaintiffs submitted to the U.S. Consulate General Kolkata an application to waive the inadmissibility finding and for Pinnaka to be issued an H-4 visa as the spouse of Kurapati, an H1-B visa holder.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs seek the same relief in both Counts, albeit under different statutory authorities— the APA in Count Nine and a Writ of Mandamus in Count Ten—to compel Defendants to adjudicate Pinnaka’s pending petitions without delay.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Docket # 12) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss the immigration claims (Counts One through Ten) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) on the grounds that they are barred by the doctrine of consular nonreviewability.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
Plaintiffs move to strike Defendants’ answer to these claims as untimely and move for the entry of default judgment in their favor. (Docket # 17 at 25–30.) In response, Defendants move for leave to file their answer to these counts instanter.
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
Because consular nonreviewability does not apply to Count Nine, and because the parties have neither briefed nor argued the TRAC test, Plaintiffs are permitted to pursue Count Nine under the APA.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Because consular nonreviewability does not apply to Count Nine, and because the parties have neither briefed nor argued the TRAC test, Plaintiffs are permitted to pursue Count Nine under the APA.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Because consular nonreviewability does not apply to Count Nine, and because the parties have neither briefed nor argued the TRAC test, Plaintiffs are permitted to pursue Count Nine under the APA.
The other claims Some dismissed, some go on Read by a model
Counts One through Eight and Count Ten are dismissed. Count Nine may go forward. Defendants’ motion for leave to file an answer to the FOIA claims (Counts Eleven through Thirteen) instanter is granted.
Months pending 5.5 months from the application to the suit; 13.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On August 9, 2023, Plaintiffs submitted to the U.S. Consulate General Kolkata an application to waive the inadmissibility finding and for Pinnaka to be issued an H-4 visa as the spouse of Kurapati, an H1-B visa holder.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability applied; Consular nonreviewability rejected; APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
As such, Pinnaka and Kurapati’s claims challenging the consular official’s denial of a visa (Counts One through Eight) must be dismissed as barred by consular nonreviewability.
Nationality India Read by a model
Indian nationals Narendranath Chowdary Pinnaka and Sruthi Kurapati

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:24-cv-00086
Filed
January 22, 2024
Ended
February 25, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
400 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
stipulated dismissal 2025-02-25; idb disp 13 (dismissed: settled)

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 Seventh 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.