Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Georgia

Anid Infosoft LLC v. Blinken

Northern District of GeorgiaThomas W. Thrash, JrDecided November 3, 2023No. 1:22-cv-04721

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,914 written decisions from 2,661 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 1:24 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 1,606 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,371 (85%), measured November 3, 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 USCIS Read by a model
The Court finds that the Anid Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim of unreasonable delay against USCIS under these factors.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa); I-129 (worker petition) Read by a model
This case arises out of an alleged unreasonable delay regarding the Plaintiffs’ applications for H-1B visas.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Yet, the Plaintiffs are comparing how USCIS handled their petitions on reconsideration with how the agency handles new petitions.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Defendants’ Motion to Sever and Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 23] is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Finally, the Defendants move to dismiss the Anid Plaintiffs’ claims as nonjusticiable under the doctrine of consular nonreviewability and for failure to state a plausible claim of unreasonable delay.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
It is before the Court on the Defendants’ Motion to Sever and to Dismiss [Doc. 23].
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
Since none of the TRAC factors favor the Plaintiffs, the Court will grant the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and dismiss the Anid Plaintiffs’ claim of unreasonable delay against USCIS.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Since none of the TRAC factors favor the Plaintiffs, the Court will grant the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and dismiss the Anid Plaintiffs’ claim of unreasonable delay against USCIS.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Since none of the TRAC factors favor the Plaintiffs, the Court will grant the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and dismiss the Anid Plaintiffs’ claim of unreasonable delay against USCIS.
The other claims The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Accordingly, the doctrine of consular nonreviewability does not apply to this case, and the Plaintiffs’ claims are justiciable.
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 neededfavors the government
Read by a model
As such, this factor favors the Defendants.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Providing more support for the Defendants, USCIS’s process of “first in, first out” has been found to be a rule of reason.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Held moot Read by a model
Accordingly, the doctrine of consular nonreviewability does not apply to this case, and the Plaintiffs’ claims are justiciable.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:22-cv-04721
Filed
November 30, 2022
Ended
November 6, 2023
Suit's filing to its end
341 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 Eleventh 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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.