Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of New York

Khanom v. Kerry

Eastern District of New YorkMargo Kitsy BrodieDecided July 15, 2014No. 1:13-cv-04280

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
The Department of State, through its consular officers, may then issue the immigrant visa to the applicant.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa); I-130 (relative petition) Read by a model
Plaintiffs seek (1) a mandamus order compelling Defendants to act on a Petition for Alien Relative Form 1-130 and to act on and issue immigrant visas
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
The Mandamus and Venue Act cited by Plaintiffs does not create jurisdiction for the Court to compel the issuance of a visa.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Defendants moved to dismiss the action as moot and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants moved to dismiss the action as moot and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Months pending Not stated at filing 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
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability applied; Held moot Read by a model
and a declaratory judgment that the Consul General’s previous denial of the visas was “without basis in fact or law,” the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to grant such relief.
Nationality Bangladesh Read by a model
and three children (“the Beneficiaries”), all of whom are citizens of Bangladesh.
I-130 category Family preference Read by a model
Khanom is a “lawfully admitted resident alien” of the United States who filed immi *571 grant visa applications and an accompanying Petition for Alien Relative Forms I-130 (the “Petition”) for admission of her husband

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:13-cv-04280
Filed
July 30, 2013
Ended
July 15, 2014
Suit's filing to its end
350 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.