Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Texas

Frankford Vapor Inc v. Secretary, Department of State

Eastern District of TexasAmos L MazzantDecided February 2, 2026No. 4:25-cv-00045

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
In contrast, the U.S. Department of State contends the consular officer determined that Khan failed to demonstrate his eligibility for the visa sought and that additional security screening was required (Dkt. #12-1 at ¶ 5).
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
On December 7, 2023, Plaintiff Muhammad Bilal Khan (the “Beneficiary” or “Khan”) submitted a Form DS-160, Online Nonimmigrant Visa Application to apply for an E2 Treaty Trader or Investor visa pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) (Dkt. #10-6).
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
The Court reiterates what, exactly, Plaintiffs seek through this action: to compel Defendants to “complete the pending action” regarding Khan’s visa application, which was refused on January 24, 2024, pending the submission of certain requested information (Dkt. #10 at p. 2).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (the “Motion”) (Dkt. #12) is hereby GRANTED and the case is hereby DISMISSED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
On June 2, 2025, Defendants filed their Motion urging the Court to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (Dkt. #12).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint (the “Motion”) (Dkt. #12).
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
Accordingly, because Plaintiffs’ claims for unreasonable delay under the APA and Mandamus Act are moot, the Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate this case.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
Accordingly, because Plaintiffs’ claims for unreasonable delay under the APA and Mandamus Act are moot, the Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate this case.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Accordingly, because Plaintiffs’ claims for unreasonable delay under the APA and Mandamus Act are moot, the Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate this case.
Months pending 13.3 months from the application to the suit; 1.6 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
Specifically, after Khan appeared for his interview at the U.S. Consulate-General in Karachi, Pakistan on January 24, 2024, his visa application was deemed refused
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability applied; Held moot; No duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal Read by a model
However, even if Plaintiffs’ claims were not moot, the Court would find that Plaintiffs’ claims are nonjusticiable, and Plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under the APA and the Mandamus Act.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 4:25-cv-00045
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 21)
Filed
January 14, 2025
Ended
February 2, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
384 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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 Fifth 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.