Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Maryland

Mohamed v. United States Department of State

District of MarylandA. David RETCopperthiteDecided May 31, 2024No. 1:23-cv-01857

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
Even if Plaintiffs had established that the Department of State has a non-discretionary duty to act on their visa applications, they have not shown that the Department’s action has been “unreasonably delayed.”
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiffs brought this suit to compel action on the pending visa application and to compel the government to schedule an interview.
What the suit asked for Schedule an interview Read by a model
Plaintiffs brought this suit to compel action on the pending visa application and to compel the government to schedule an interview.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons set forth in this Memorandum Opinion, Defendant’s Motion (ECF No. 23) is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
The Court declines to exercise its jurisdiction to construe the Motion as one for summary judgment, and will construe the Motion as a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On April 5, 2024, Defendants filed the present Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction arid for Failure to State a Claim, or in the alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ mandamus and APA claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons set forth in this Memorandum Opinion, Defendant’s Motion (ECF No. 23) is GRANTED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ mandamus and APA claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Therefore, because Plaintiffs’ due process claims lack merit, dismissal would be appropriate even if the Court had subject matter jurisdiction.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
TRAC factors one and two favor Defendants.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
The National Visa Center “schedules appointments in the chronological order of the documentarily complete cases.”
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Eritrea Read by a model
The Plaintiffs are citizens of Eritrea

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
Mohamed v. United States Department of StateThis decision May 31, 2024 A. David RETCopperthite Dismissed
Mohamed v. United States Department of StateThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted May 31, 2024 A. David Copperthite Dismissed

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-01857
Filed
July 11, 2023
Ended
May 31, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
325 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 Fourth 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.