Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of New York

Alburakeh v. Armstrong

Southern District of New YorkPaul A. EngelmayerDecided December 1, 2025No. 1:25-cv-02700

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
As of the filing of the Complaint, more than one year after the interview, the State Department has not further acted on Alshomary's visa application.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
At the close of the interview, the consular officer refused Alshomary's application pursuant to§ 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and no visa was issued. Compl. ,r 20. The consular officer then placed the visa application into "administrative processing."
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Alburakeh' s argument is that the State Department has unlawfully delayed a "final decision" on her husband's visa application, when, after refusing the application at the close of the consular interview, it placed the application in administrative processing.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the State Department's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b )( 6).
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the State Department's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b )( 6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants now move to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
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 the State Department's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b )( 6).
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the State Department's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b )( 6).
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the State Department's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b )( 6).
Months pending 6.6 months from the application to the suit; 14.6 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
The interview took place at 8:30 a.m. on September 13, 2024.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings No duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal Read by a model
Although the refusal of visa can be revisited and a visa issued thereafter, that discretionary act does not give rise to a legally enforceable duty.
Nationality Syria Read by a model
she and Milad Alshomary, a Syrian citizen, were married in Swaileh, Jordan.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
On July 25, 2022, Alburakeh filed an I-130 petition with USCIS seeking to classify her husband as an immediate relative.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-02700
Filed
April 1, 2025
Ended
December 1, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
244 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. 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.