Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Minnesota

Hassan v. Dillard

District of MinnesotaKatherine M. MenendezDecided December 4, 2024No. 0:24-cv-01351

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
First, Ms. Hussein asserts, pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 555(b), 706(1), that the State Department has unreasonably delayed adjudication of the visa application.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
This case concerns the application for a K-1 fiancé visa for Mr. Hussein.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Plaintiff Samsam Abas Hassan is a United States citizen who brings this suit to compel Defendants Marc C. Dillard and Antony Blinken to take action on and adjudicate her fiancé’s visa application so that the couple can be united in America.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 11) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss Ms. Hassan’s complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss Ms. Hassan’s complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
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
Plaintiff’s due process claim in her Third Cause of Action is dismissed. The motion is otherwise denied.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Plaintiff’s due process claim in her Third Cause of Action is dismissed. The motion is otherwise denied.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Plaintiff’s due process claim in her Third Cause of Action is dismissed. The motion is otherwise denied.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiff’s due process claim in her Third Cause of Action is dismissed.
Months pending 20.7 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Here, Mr. Hussein’s interview took place in March 2023.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found Read by a model
Accordingly, the Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s unreasonable-delay claims based on the doctrine of consular reviewability is denied.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 0:24-cv-01351
Filed
April 15, 2024
Ended
May 29, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
774 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 13 (dismissed: settled)

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why.

Supreme Court and Eighth 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.