Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Missouri

Amerkhail v. Blinken

Eastern District of MissouriStephen R. ClarkDecided September 7, 2022No. 4:22-cv-00149

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 Department of State Read by a model
Regardless of the State Department’s allegedly unreasonable delay in completing the adjudication process, Amerkhail has pleaded no facts alleging that Defendants Mayorkas or Jaddou bear responsibility for that delay.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
This case centers on Amerkhail’s K-1 visa petition for his fiancée.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
It is this “administrative processing” delay that Amerkhail alleges is unreasonable, id. at § 29, and he seeks an order “requiring the Defendants to complete the adjudication process,”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The Court grants in part and denies in part the Defendants’ [5] Motion to Dismiss, and dismisses Defendants Merrick Garland, Alejandro Mayorkas, Ur Mendoza Jaddou, and Christopher Wray from the case.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
The claims against Defendants Antony Blinken, Richard Visek, Woodward Price, and Norman Scharpf remain.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
The claims against Defendants Antony Blinken, Richard Visek, Woodward Price, and Norman Scharpf remain.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
The claims against Defendants Antony Blinken, Richard Visek, Woodward Price, and Norman Scharpf remain.
Months pending 30.1 months from the application to the suit The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
In August 2019, a consular officer conducted a visa interview with Nawabi in Frankfurt, Germany.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot; Mootness argument rejected Read by a model
Because the complaint itself establishes that Mayorkas and Jaddou have completed their role in the adjudication of Amerkhail’s petition, Amerkhail’s claims against them are “now moot,”

How the case ended

Docket
No. 4:22-cv-00149
Filed
February 7, 2022
Ended
October 28, 2022
Suit's filing to its end
263 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
stipulated dismissal 2022-10-28; idb disp 12 (dismissed: voluntarily)

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 Eighth 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.