Mandamus decisions / District of New Jersey
JAMOUSSIAN v. BLINKEN
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 |
National Visa Center
Read by a model
On August 19, 2020, the I-129F was approved, and the case was forwarded to the National Visa Center (“NVC”), which was to schedule an interview. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa)
Read by a model
Karoun J. Jamoussian is understandably frustrated at the slow pace of the processing of a nonimmigrant visa application. |
| What the suit asked for |
Schedule an interview
Read by a model
Plaintiffs ask that this Court enter an order “mandating a time certain to schedule and adjudicate Petitioner’s nonimmigrant visa” |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
The defendants’ motion to dismiss the Complaint is therefore GRANTED. |
| Motion decided |
Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
The defendants’ motion to dismiss the Complaint is therefore GRANTED. |
| Disposition |
Dismissed
The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness.
Read by a model
The defendants’ motion to dismiss the Complaint is therefore GRANTED. |
| Prevailing party |
Government
Read by a model
The defendants’ motion to dismiss the Complaint is therefore GRANTED. |
| The delay claim |
Dismissed
Read by a model
Weighing the relevant factors, I find that no unreasonable delay has been plausibly pled, and I grant the motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. |
| Months pending |
18 months from the application to the court's decision
Read by a model
As of this writing, the I-129F was approved some eighteen months ago. |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| The government's delay arguments |
Line-jumping accepted
Read by a model
Under such circumstances, to grant relief would accomplish little beyond pushing one applicant ahead of others equally deserving, scrambling agency priorities and incentivizing litigation. |
| Threshold rulings | None Read by a model |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 2:21-cv-10980
- Filed
- May 7, 2021
- Ended
- February 23, 2022
- Suit's filing to its end
- 292 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 Third 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.
-
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
-
Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers Union v. OSHA, 145 F.3d 120
Third Circuit, March 16, 1998. The Third Circuit weighs the TRAC factors in deciding whether to compel agency action that has been unreasonably delayed.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read the one published decision citing this case, as of 2026-11-03; it does not treat the case adversely. That describes that decision; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
-
Geda v. Director, USCIS, 126 F.4th 835
Third Circuit, January 23, 2025. Section 1255(a) commits both the adjustment decision and the process and pace for reaching it to the Secretary's discretion, so § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) strips district courts of jurisdiction over challenges to USCIS's adjudication hold policy and § 1252(a)(2)(D) does not restore it.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance