Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of New York

Alharbi v. Miller

Eastern District of New YorkCoganDecided March 26, 2019No. 1:18-cv-02435

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
Once Proclamation 9645 was enforceable, the Djibouti Embassy refused plaintiff-beneficiaries' immigrant visas, stating that they were precluded by its terms.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiffs sought an order mandating that defendants immediately adjudicate their immigrant visa applications.
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
For this reason, plaintiffs' ultimate request that the Court mandate that defendants print their visas without any further delay is improper.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Plaintiffs have moved for class certification, and defendants have moved to dismiss the amended complaint. This decision disposes of both motions.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants have also moved to dismiss certain of plaintiffs' claims under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(h)(3), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and others under Rule 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
Plaintiffs have moved for class certification, and defendants have moved to dismiss the amended complaint. This decision disposes of both motions.
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
Thus, the following plaintiffs' claims for injunctive and declaratory relief are dismissed as moot:
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
Thus, the following plaintiffs' claims for injunctive and declaratory relief are dismissed as moot:
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Thus, the following plaintiffs' claims for injunctive and declaratory relief are dismissed as moot:
The other claims Not decided here Read by a model
Their claims for monetary damages, however, are different.
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; Mootness argument rejected Read by a model
As a result, the Court's review of plaintiffs' visa denials is constrained to whether defendants have advanced a facially legitimate and bona fide reason for those refusals.
Nationality Yemen Read by a model
on behalf of an immediate relative who is a Yemeni *541 national.
212(f) proclamation Proclamation 9645 Read by a model
Once Proclamation 9645 was enforceable, the Djibouti Embassy refused plaintiff-beneficiaries' immigrant visas, stating that they were precluded by its terms.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:18-cv-02435
Filed
April 25, 2018
Ended
April 1, 2019
Suit's filing to its end
341 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 17 (judgment: other), 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.