Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Kansas

Hammoud v. Blinken

District of KansasToby CrouseDecided December 30, 2025No. 6:24-cv-01139

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 Roula Hammoud and Taha Matteo sued the United States Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, asserting that consular officers in Lebanon have unreasonably delayed making a final decision on their children’s visa applications for admission into the United States.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
According to the plaintiffs, the children’s visa applications have been in “ongoing ‘administrative processing’” since then.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
this relief would require the consular officers to complete the administrative processing of I.B. and L.B.’s visa applications, re-open their applications, and make a new determination as to whether to issue or refuse a visa.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Rubio’s Motion to Dismiss, Doc. 10, is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Rubio moved to dismiss. Doc. 10. In particular, Rubio asserts that the plaintiffs lack standing because they have not alleged an injury that a judgment in their favor could meaningfully redress.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Rubio moved to dismiss.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Rubio’s Motion to Dismiss, Doc. 10, is GRANTED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Rubio’s Motion to Dismiss, Doc. 10, is GRANTED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Rubio’s Motion to Dismiss, Doc. 10, is GRANTED.
Months pending 31.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
The National Visa Center further determined that I.B. and L.B. had submitted the necessary documentation to qualify for a visa, so it scheduled an interview for the children, which took place in Lebanon in May 2023.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings No duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal Read by a model
Neither statutory nor regulatory guidance requires consular officers to re-open a refused visa application at all, let alone within a specified period of time.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Matteo first petitioned to classify I.B. and L.B. as his immediate-relative stepchildren.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 6:24-cv-01139
Filed
August 12, 2024
Ended
December 30, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
505 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 Tenth 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.