Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of New Jersey

MELEO v. BLINKEN

District of New JerseyRobert KirschDecided September 30, 2024No. 3:23-cv-03495

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
And the State Department’s discretion to process visa applications on its own timeline and according to its own priorities is a prime example.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
A couple of months later, Plaintiffs completed the online nonimmigrant visa application, the Form DS-160.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
The Complaint seeks to compel the Defendants “to issue a final decision on” Baranzandeh’s application for a K-1 visa, a temporary nonimmigrant visa.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and the Complaint are dismissed.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1). C. UNREASONABLE DELAY In addition to the Court’s finding of a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and standing, consistent with Azam, the facts here fail to properly allege an unreasonable delay, thus Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 12) filed by the Office of the United States Attorney on behalf of Respondent-Defendant Antony Blinken
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and the Complaint are dismissed.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and the Complaint are dismissed.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Therefore, Plaintiffs claim must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the APA and the Mandamus Act.
Months pending 23.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
“delay is properly calculated from [October 25, 2022,] the date Plaintiffs’ K-1 visa application was created,”
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
it still “falls well within the bounds of delays that other courts have found reasonable.”
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
the Court cannot expedite Plaintiffs’ visa application over other similarly situated applicants.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; No duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal Read by a model
the doctrine of consular nonreviewability is not relevant here because Plaintiffs are not seeking judicial review of a consular officer’s denial of a visa.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Baranzandeh, an Iranian citizen.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:23-cv-03495
Filed
June 28, 2023
Ended
September 30, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
460 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
idb disp 2 (dismissed: want of prosecution)

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 Third 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.