Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of New York

Saleh v. Holder

Eastern District of New YorkVitalianoDecided November 4, 2014No. 1:13-cv-07181

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
Saleh’s complaint demands that the Court order the American embassy in Yemen to complete its processing of the visa applications of his wife and his three children, which, he contends, were already approved by CIS and transferred to the National Visa Center.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
The visa applications were then sent to the U.S. Embassy in Sana’a, Yemen, on December 14, 2012.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
It seeks a judgment declaring the United States must adjudicate visa applications for his wife and their three children, and the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the government to do so.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Saleh’s complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1)
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), or, alternatively, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Saleh’s complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Saleh’s complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Saleh’s complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
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; Mootness argument rejected Read by a model
the embassy’s decision to deny two of the visas, which is shielded from the Court’s review by the doctrine of consular nonreviewability
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Saleh is a United States citizen. (Compl., Dkt. 1, ¶ 5). On March 23, 2010, Saleh submitted 1-130 petitions with United States Consular and Immigration Services (“CIS”) seeking visas for his wife, Elham Saleh Almardahi,

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:13-cv-07181
Filed
December 17, 2013
Ended
November 14, 2014
Suit's filing to its end
332 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.

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.