Mandamus decisions / Southern District of New York
Nusantara Foundation Inc. v. Pompeo
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
After each interview, the Indonesia Embassy found Chermansyah ineligible for an R-1 religious worker visa and denied the applications. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa)
Read by a model
On October 20, 2017 and again on July 27, 2018,2 Chermansyah appeared at the Indonesia Embassy for R-1 religious worker visa interviews. |
| What the suit asked for | Not recorded Read by a model |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED. |
| Motion decided |
Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
Read by a model
move to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and the doctrine of consular nonreviewability. |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED. |
| 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. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the open motion at Document 34 and to close this case. |
| Prevailing party |
Government
Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED. |
| The other claims |
Dismissed
Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the open motion at Document 34 and to close this case. |
| Months pending | Not stated Read by a model |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings |
Consular nonreviewability applied; Consular nonreviewability rejected
Read by a model
Plaintiff Chermansyah’s claims are dismissed without considering the application of Mandel. |
| Nationality |
Indonesia
Read by a model
Chermansyah is a citizen of Indonesia. |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 1:19-cv-03355
- Filed
- April 15, 2019
- Ended
- September 16, 2020
- Suit's filing to its end
- 520 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 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.
-
Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. 667
Supreme Court, June 26, 2018. Mandel's facially-legitimate-and-bona-fide standard governs constitutional challenges to entry restrictions, and a citation to a valid statutory ground ordinarily satisfies it.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Department of State v. Muñoz, 602 U.S. 899
Supreme Court, June 21, 2024. A U.S. citizen has no fundamental liberty interest in a noncitizen spouse's admission, so marriage alone entitles the citizen neither to Mandel review of the consular refusal nor to an explanation beyond the statutory citation.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753
Supreme Court, June 29, 1972. When a visa refusal burdens a U.S. citizen's own constitutional rights, courts ask only whether the Executive gave a facially legitimate and bona fide reason and do not look behind it.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55
Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
American Academy of Religion v. Napolitano, 573 F.3d 115
Second Circuit, July 17, 2009. Where a visa refusal implicates U.S. citizens' First Amendment rights, Mandel review applies: the government must identify a properly construed statutory ground and the officer's reason to believe it applies, and the applicant must have a chance to rebut a knowing material-support charge.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 4 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-13; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
-
Chen v. Rubio, 158 F.4th 393
Second Circuit, October 29, 2025. After Muñoz, consular nonreviewability insulates relatives' visa refusals from a citizen sponsor's challenge, and the claims were properly dismissed with prejudice.
ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-11-13; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law. The citation index lists 5 other decisions citing it, none a Supreme Court, BIA or Attorney General precedent or a published circuit opinion; ImmCite's status does not review them.