Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Illinois

Khan v. Bitter

Northern District of IllinoisHarry D. LeinenweberDecided September 28, 2023No. 1:22-cv-06617

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
In the absence of a mandatory, nondiscretionary duty that could be violated by the State Department’s failure to yet interview Bisma Khan and adjudicate a resulting application, Plaintiff’s APA delay claim and mandamus claim fail for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
On November 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed his two-count petition requesting the Court order Defendants to adjudicate on Plaintiff’s immigrant visa application.
What the suit asked for Schedule an interview Read by a model
Specifically, the plaintiff and her husband awaited the scheduling of an interview, as Plaintiff does here.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons stated herein, the Court grants Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is granted under Frep. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (1) and this Court dismisses the case without prejudice.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
For the reasons stated herein, the Court grants Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is granted under Frep. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (1) and this Court dismisses the case without prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons stated herein, the Court grants Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiff’s APA delay claim and mandamus claim fail for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted; Visa availability rejected Read by a model
Without undermining the extremely painful wait time that Plaintiff and his daughter have suffered, the Court does not find Plaintiff’s situation warrants jumping the line at this time.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
I-130 category Family preference Read by a model
“2,331 pending documentarily complete family-preference cases pending the scheduling of an interview to make a visa application at the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad ahead of [his own] case.”

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:22-cv-06617
Filed
November 28, 2022
Ended
September 28, 2023
Suit's filing to its end
304 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2023-09-28 dismisses for want of jurisdiction; 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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.