Mandamus decisions / District of Connecticut

Balali v. U.S. Department of State

District of ConnecticutSarala V. NagalaDecided January 30, 2026No. 3:25-cv-00144

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 rule
of the delay, Defendants—the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Embassy in Yerevan, Armenia (“the Embassy”), U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi—violated
Form or filing I-130 (relative petition); DS-260 (immigrant visa); 221(g) (consular refusal) Read by rule
Services (“USCIS”) Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, on behalf of their family member. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), 1154(a)(1)(A). USCIS considers the petition, and any evidence presented
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by rule
Defendants have moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ action, claiming this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and, in any event, that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:25-cv-00144
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 25)
Filed
January 29, 2025
Ended
February 2, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
369 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.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

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.