Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of New York

Humaid v. Garland

Western District of New YorkElizabeth A. WolfordDecided January 31, 2024No. 6:23-cv-06071

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
Plaintiff and his daughters made repeated requests to the U.S. Embassy in Djibouti to grant the immigrant visas, including filing a “Motion to Reconsider,” or to return their approved petitions to USCIS for further action.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
In 2013, the U.S. Embassy in Sanaa conducted immigrant visa interviews of Plaintiff’s three daughters.
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
to grant immigrant visas to his daughters, or, alternatively, to “suspend action and return [his daughters’] petitions to USCIS through the [National Visa Center] for further proceedings in compliance with [the Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual] (“FAM”).”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. 6) is granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted on April 6, 2023.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Presently before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
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 (Dkt. 6) is granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and to close this case.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and to close this case.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Since Plaintiff seeks immigrant visas for his daughters, his claim falls squarely within the doctrine of consular nonreviewability. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Because the Court concludes that the consular nonreviewability doctrine bars the relief that Plaintiff seeks and, alternatively, that Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue the claims asserted herein, it need not and does not reach the other issues raised by Defendants.
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 Read by a model
Since Plaintiff seeks immigrant visas for his daughters, his claim falls squarely within the doctrine of consular nonreviewability.
Nationality Yemen Read by a model
While Plaintiff does not specify the country of birth or citizenship of his three daughters, the Court presumes they are citizens of Yemen
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
In 2007, Plaintiff submitted Form I-130, “Petition for Alien Relative,” to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) for each of his daughters to classify them as his immediate relatives.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 6:23-cv-06071
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 10), deciding the motion (ECF 6)
Filed
January 26, 2023
Ended
February 1, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
371 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, and the motion number is read from that entry's text. 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.