Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of New York

Tharmabalan v. Blinken

Southern District of New YorkGabriel W. GorensteinDecided April 29, 2024No. 1:23-cv-03539

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 seek declaratory and injunctive relief reversing the State Department’s decision, or in the alternative, an order directing the State Department to reconsider Tharmika’s application.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
On August 24, 2023, the consulate “issued a purported denial of the immigrant visa application under 8 U.S.C. §1182(a)(4).”
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
For the reasons set forth below, the Government’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
For the reasons set forth below, the Government’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is granted.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The Government has moved to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
As a result, any claim regarding the delay in processing the application is moot.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
As a result, any claim regarding the delay in processing the application is moot.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
As a result, any claim regarding the delay in processing the application is moot.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
For the reasons set forth below, the Government’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is granted.
Months pending 60.9 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
On August 24, 2023, the consulate “issued a purported denial of the immigrant visa application under 8 U.S.C. §1182(a)(4).”
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability applied; Held moot Read by a model
Accordingly, plaintiffs’ claims do not fall within the limited exception to the consular nonreviewability doctrine.
Nationality Sri Lanka Read by a model
Plaintiff Tharmika is Rajapoopathy’s daughter and is also a citizen of Sri Lanka, where she currently resides.
I-130 category Family preference Read by a model
The particular visa plaintiffs sought was a family-based immigrant visa as provided in section 203(a)(2)(A) of the INA.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-03539
Filed
April 27, 2023
Ended
April 29, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
368 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
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.