Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of New York

Nurjahan v. United States Department of State

Eastern District of New YorkAllyne R. RossDecided April 13, 2023No. 1:22-cv-02692

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,917 written decisions from 2,664 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 7:07 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 Department of State Read by a model
the United States Department of State, the United States Embassy in Dhaka, Bangladesh, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, and Ambassador Peter Haas (collectively, “defendants”) in connection with defendants’ failure to adjudicate a visa application
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
The length of the application process for a sibling visa therefore seems predominantly determined by demand outstripping the supply authorized by Congress.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
in connection with defendants’ failure to adjudicate a visa application filed by Nurjahan’s sister, Nasrin Jahan, a citizen of Bangladesh.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Before me is defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before me is defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 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
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close the case.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
According, consular nonreviewability precludes consideration of plaintiff’s APA claim.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, plaintiffs’ due process claim must also be dismissed.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted; Visa availability accepted Read by a model
It would undoubtedly “interfere with the visa-issuing process” to issue an order moving plaintiff to the front of the queue.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability applied Read by a model
The doctrine of consular nonreviewability applies in this case.
Nationality Bangladesh Read by a model
Nasrin Jahan, a citizen of Bangladesh.
I-130 category Family preference Read by a model
A visa number for applications from siblings of U.S. citizens with a priority date of December 29, 2006, became available on November 1, 2020, and then again on July 1, 2021.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:22-cv-02692
Filed
May 9, 2022
Ended
April 17, 2023
Suit's filing to its end
343 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 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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.