Mandamus decisions / Central District of Illinois

Malek v. United States Department of State

Central District of IllinoisColleen R. LawlessDecided April 26, 2024No. 3:23-cv-03261

Read the decision Original 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 In sum, the Department of State does not have a nondiscretionary duty to schedule a consular interview within a specific timeframe.
Form or filing	DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model Malek’s son has not been denied adjudication of his visa; his visa petition is still pending and will, following an interview before a consular officer, ultimately be adjudicated.
What the suit asked for	Schedule an interview Read by a model On November 22, 2023, Malek filed her response, arguing Defendants do have a clear, non-discretionary duty to schedule an interview on the visa application in a timely manner, and that Defendants did not apply the correct 12(b)(6) standard.
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model For the forgoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED without prejudice.
Motion decided	Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint under both Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model On November 9, 2023, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and Lack of Jurisdiction.
Disposition	Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model For the forgoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED without prejudice.
Prevailing party	Government Read by a model For the forgoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED without prejudice.
The delay claim	Dismissed Read by a model Therefore, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the APA claim.
The other claims	Dismissed Read by a model For the forgoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED without prejudice.
Months pending	98.9 months from the application to the suit; 107 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model On May 28, 2015, Malek filed the petition with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
TRAC factors	The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings	None Read by a model
Nationality	Iran Read by a model Amirhossein Shokrani, who is a citizen and resident of Iran.

How the case ended

Docket: No. 3:23-cv-03261
On the docket: This ruling (ECF 9)
Filed: August 24, 2023
Ended: April 26, 2024
Suit's filing to its end: 246 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.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

Supreme Court and Seventh 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.

Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. 667

Supreme Court, June 26, 2018. Mandel's facially-legitimate-and-bona-fide standard governs constitutional challenges to entry restrictions, and a citation to a valid statutory ground ordinarily satisfies it.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Department of State v. Muñoz, 602 U.S. 899

Supreme Court, June 21, 2024. A U.S. citizen has no fundamental liberty interest in a noncitizen spouse's admission, so marriage alone entitles the citizen neither to Mandel review of the consular refusal nor to an explanation beyond the statutory citation.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753

Supreme Court, June 29, 1972. When a visa refusal burdens a U.S. citizen's own constitutional rights, courts ask only whether the Executive gave a facially legitimate and bona fide reason and do not look behind it.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55

Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Pak v. Biden, 91 F.4th 896

Seventh Circuit, January 31, 2024. Consular nonreviewability bars a systemic challenge to how terrorism-related inadmissibility exemptions are considered, a matter the statute commits to the Secretaries' sole unreviewable discretion, and a statutory citation with a facial link to the record satisfies Mandel.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 2 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-13; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
Matushkina v. Nielsen, 877 F.3d 289

Seventh Circuit, December 7, 2017. Consular nonreviewability is a merits rule rather than a limit on subject-matter jurisdiction, and it bars indirect attacks on a visa refusal through the underlying inadmissibility finding.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 11 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-13; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
Yafai v. Pompeo, 912 F.3d 1018

Seventh Circuit, January 4, 2019. A visa refusal citing a statutory inadmissibility ground supported by facts in the record is facially legitimate and bona fide, and bad faith must be affirmatively shown before a court looks further.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 8 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-13; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
Iddir v. INS, 301 F.3d 492

Seventh Circuit, August 6, 2002. INS had a nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate diversity-visa applications and § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) does not bar review of a failure to act, but no relief is available once the fiscal year ends.

ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Questioned by Akash Shahi v. United States Department of S, 33 F.4th 927 (2022).
Calderon-Ramirez v. McCament, 877 F.3d 272

Seventh Circuit, December 5, 2017. USCIS must process U-visa petitions within a reasonable time, but neither mandamus nor the APA offers relief to an applicant who shows nothing setting him apart from those ahead of him in the oldest-first queue.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 3 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-13; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
Shahi v. United States Department of State, 33 F.4th 927

Seventh Circuit, May 6, 2022. Courts cannot order a diversity visa issued after the fiscal year ends whatever relief is requested, because the statute ends eligibility, and the Mandamus Act supplies a remedy rather than jurisdiction.

ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-10-29; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law. The citation index lists 10 other decisions citing it, none a Supreme Court, BIA or Attorney General precedent or a published circuit opinion; ImmCite's status does not review them.