Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of New York

Kubanychbekov v. Blinken

Southern District of New YorkDale E. HoDecided December 2, 2024

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
Plaintiffs contend that the Department of State has failed to properly adjudicate their visa applications and ask the Court to compel them to do so.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiffs, Zhanybek Kubanychbekov and his wife, Asel Sagynbekova, filed this action alleging unreasonable delays in the administrative processing of their Diversity Visa applications
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Plaintiffs have requested this Court grant a writ of mandamus “to compel Defendants to perform their duties and complete the background checks for, and adjudication of, Plaintiffs’” visa applications.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES the petition for writ of mandamus as moot.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Plaintiffs have requested this Court grant a writ of mandamus “to compel Defendants to perform their duties and complete the background checks for, and adjudication of, Plaintiffs’” visa applications.
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES the petition for writ of mandamus as moot.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES the petition for writ of mandamus as moot.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES the petition for writ of mandamus as moot.
Months pending 13.4 months from the application to the suit; 7.4 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
On September 13, 2023, the government informed Plaintiffs that their visa applications had been denied because the maximum number of visas had been reached for that fiscal year.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Plaintiffs have not shown that there are any pending applications that the United States has a “clear and nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate,” which makes these claims moot.

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 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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.