Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of New York

Rashed v. Blinken

Southern District of New YorkPaul A. EngelmayerDecided November 27, 2024No. 1:24-cv-00964

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
As alleged, the State Department unlawfully delayed the adjudication of plaintiffs’ visa application in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 700 et seq. and the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Obtaining a family-based immigrant visa is a two-step process.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Plaintiffs centrally argue that the State Department has unlawfully delayed a “final decision” on their visa application by placing it into administrative processing at the close of the consular interview.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the State Department’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion and dismisses the Complaint.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
The Court denies the State Department’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion and grants the Rule 12(b)(6) motion for the reasons stated in Esghai.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the Court are defendants’ unopposed motions to dismiss the petition pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the State Department’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion and dismisses the Complaint.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the State Department’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion and dismisses the Complaint.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the State Department’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion and dismisses the Complaint.
Months pending 13.8 months from the application to the suit; 23.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
The interview took place on December 14, 2022.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Mootness argument rejected; No duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal Read by a model
For the reasons discussed above, the consular nonreviewability doctrine does not apply here.
Nationality Yemen Read by a model
His wife and four children are citizens of Yemen.
I-130 category Family preference Read by a model
Abdulla Rashed is a legal permanent resident of the United States. Dkt. 13 (“Amended Petition” or “Am. Pet.”) ¶ 28. His wife and four children are citizens of Yemen.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-00964
Filed
February 8, 2024
Ended
December 2, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
298 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2024-11-27 dismisses for want of jurisdiction; 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.