Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Wisconsin

Jama v. Wahid

Eastern District of WisconsinWilliam E DuffinDecided January 30, 2025No. 1:24-cv-00583

Read the decision Original 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 Jama seeks to compel agency action based on the consular officer’s alleged unreasonable delay in resolving her husband’s visa application.
Form or filing	221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model Your immigrant visa application has been refused under section 221(g) of the [INA]
What the suit asked for	Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model Jama seeks to compel agency action based on the consular officer’s alleged unreasonable delay in resolving her husband’s visa application.
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 12) for failure to state a claim for a writ of mandamus relief, failure to state a claim under the Administrative Procedure Act, and failure to state a claim for a Due Process violation is granted.
Motion decided	Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model On October 3, 2024, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model On October 3, 2024, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Disposition	Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model Jama’s claims are dismissed with prejudice for 12(b)(6) failure to state a claim.
Prevailing party	Government Read by a model Jama’s claims are dismissed with prejudice for 12(b)(6) failure to state a claim.
The delay claim	Dismissed Read by a model Jama’s claims are dismissed with prejudice for 12(b)(6) failure to state a claim.
The other claims	Dismissed Read by a model Jama fails to state a claim for infringement of her procedural due process rights.
Months pending	5.9 months from the application to the suit; 14.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model In November 2023, Jama’s husband had his interview with the U.S. embassy in Zambia.
TRAC factors	The court weighed the TRAC factors 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government 3. Human health and welfarenot reached 4. Competing prioritiesnot reached 5. Interests prejudicednot reached 6. No impropriety needednot reached Read by a model The relatively short amount of time passed weighs strongly in favor of the government.
Threshold rulings	Consular nonreviewability rejected; Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found; APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model Thus, the doctrine of consular nonreviewability does not bar Jama’s unreasonable delay claims.

How the case ended

Docket: No. 1:24-cv-00583
Filed: May 13, 2024
Ended: January 30, 2025
Suit's filing to its end: 262 days
How it ended: Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record: 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 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 14, 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
Pak v. Biden, 91 F.4th 896

Seventh Circuit, January 31, 2024. Consular nonreviewability bars a systemic challenge to how terrorism-related inadmissibility exemptions are considered, a matter the statute commits to the Secretaries' sole unreviewable discretion, and a statutory citation with a facial link to the record satisfies Mandel.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 2 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-13; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
Matushkina v. Nielsen, 877 F.3d 289

Seventh Circuit, December 7, 2017. Consular nonreviewability is a merits rule rather than a limit on subject-matter jurisdiction, and it bars indirect attacks on a visa refusal through the underlying inadmissibility finding.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 11 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-13; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
Yafai v. Pompeo, 912 F.3d 1018

Seventh Circuit, January 4, 2019. A visa refusal citing a statutory inadmissibility ground supported by facts in the record is facially legitimate and bona fide, and bad faith must be affirmatively shown before a court looks further.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 8 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-13; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
Iddir v. INS, 301 F.3d 492

Seventh Circuit, August 6, 2002. INS had a nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate diversity-visa applications and § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) does not bar review of a failure to act, but no relief is available once the fiscal year ends.

ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Questioned by Akash Shahi v. United States Department of S, 33 F.4th 927 (2022).
Calderon-Ramirez v. McCament, 877 F.3d 272

Seventh Circuit, December 5, 2017. USCIS must process U-visa petitions within a reasonable time, but neither mandamus nor the APA offers relief to an applicant who shows nothing setting him apart from those ahead of him in the oldest-first queue.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 3 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-13; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
Shahi v. United States Department of State, 33 F.4th 927

Seventh Circuit, May 6, 2022. Courts cannot order a diversity visa issued after the fiscal year ends whatever relief is requested, because the statute ends eligibility, and the Mandamus Act supplies a remedy rather than jurisdiction.

ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-10-29; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law. The citation index lists 10 other decisions citing it, none a Supreme Court, BIA or Attorney General precedent or a published circuit opinion; ImmCite's status does not review them.