Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Kansas

Fareed v. United States Department of Homeland Security

District of KansasDaniel D. CrabtreeDecided December 12, 2023No. 2:23-cv-02006

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
Instead, the State Department defendants must schedule the interview.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Then, plaintiffs filed an Application for Immigrant Visa and Alien registration (Form DS260) on plaintiff Raza’s behalf in September 2020.
What the suit asked for Schedule an interview Read by a model
Plaintiffs ask the court to compel agency action—scheduling plaintiff Raza’s visa interview and adjudication of his application—under either the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) or by issuing a writ of mandamus.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The court thus dismisses this case, without prejudice.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
The court dismisses these remaining two defendants under Rule 12(b)(1) because, without standing, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over these defendants.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants filed two Motions to Dismiss (Doc. 13; Doc. 18).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
The court thus dismisses this case, without prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The court grants defendants’ Second Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. 18), holding that plaintiffs failed to establish standing to sue the remaining two defendants: the United States Department of State and Antony Blinken, Secretary of State.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The court dismisses plaintiffs’ claims against all remaining defendants for lack of standing under Rule 12(b)(1), and thus dismisses the case for lack of jurisdiction.
Months pending 38.9 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiffs filed a DS-260 in September 2020.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
The government's delay arguments Visa availability accepted Read by a model
So, even if the court were to compel the State Department to schedule an interview and adjudicate his application, plaintiff Raza currently cannot receive a visa. Without any avenue to secure a successful visa application, the court cannot redress plaintiffs’ injuries.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Pakistan Read by a model
The son—plaintiff Ammar Raza—is a citizen of Pakistan and is eligible for a family-based immigrant visa under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
I-130 category Family preference Read by a model
Plaintiff Raza qualifies under the INA as an unmarried child “of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence” in the F2A eligibility category.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:23-cv-02006
Filed
January 5, 2023
Ended
December 12, 2023
Suit's filing to its end
341 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 3 (dismissed: lack of jurisdiction)

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 Tenth 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.