Mandamus decisions / District of Massachusetts

Conley v. United States Department of State

District of MassachusettsF. Dennis Saylor IVDecided April 16, 2024No. 1:24-cv-10131

Read the decision Original 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 The complaint alleges that the Department of State’s review was unreasonably delayed, and that plaintiff was deprived of her right to due process of law under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Form or filing	221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model The petition was then sent to the U.S. Consulate General in Montreal for an immigrant visa interview, which was conducted on September 14, 2023.
What the suit asked for	Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model to complete the administrative review of her visa application on behalf of her father, Mihai Dan Aprodu, and for the Court to favorably adjudicate that application.
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
Motion decided	Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 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, defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The clerk is instructed to enter a separate order of dismissal.
Prevailing party	Government Read by a model For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
The delay claim	Dismissed Read by a model Because defendants have acted on the visa application, they have not failed to take any legally required action, and Count 1 does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted and will be dismissed.
The other claims	Dismissed Read by a model Accordingly, because the complaint fails to identify a constitutionally protected interest sufficient to support a due-process claim, Count 2 will be dismissed.
Months pending	4.1 months from the application to the suit; 7.1 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model The petition was then sent to the U.S. Consulate General in Montreal for an immigrant visa interview, which was conducted on September 14, 2023.
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 Because defendants have acted on the visa application, they have not failed to take any legally required action, and Count 1 does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted and will be dismissed.
Nationality	Canada Read by a model Ioana Conley is the daughter of Mihai Dan Aprodu, a Canadian citizen.

How the case ended

Docket: No. 1:24-cv-10131
Filed: January 17, 2024
Ended: April 16, 2024
Suit's filing to its end: 90 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 First 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.

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
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
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
Adams v. Baker, 909 F.2d 643

First Circuit, July 26, 1990. A visa denial stands under Mandel where the government states a facially legitimate and bona fide reason, and the court will not weigh the evidence behind it.

ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Clarified (jurisdictional description superseded by Muñoz), as recognized in Teles De Menezes v. Rubio, 156 F.4th 1 (2025).
Teles De Menezes v. Rubio, 156 F.4th 1

First Circuit, September 18, 2025. After Muñoz, consular nonreviewability is a merits defense rather than a jurisdictional bar, and it does not reach a challenge to the State Department's reclassification of an approved petition as opposed to a visa refusal.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 2 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-10-31; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
Towns of Wellesley, Concord & Norwood v. FERC, 829 F.2d 275

First Circuit, September 25, 1987. The First Circuit applies the TRAC factors when asked to compel agency action that has been unreasonably delayed.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Patel v. Jaddou, 118 F.4th 475

First Circuit, October 16, 2024. Assuming statutory jurisdiction, § 1255(a) does not forbid USCIS from holding adjustment applications until a visa number is immediately available, so no § 706(1) claim lies against the abeyance policy; the Fourth Circuit rejects deciding the merits before the § 1252(a)(2)(B) question.

ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Reasoning rejected in the Fourth Circuit by Lolakshi Kale v. Angelica Alfonso-Royals, 139 F.4th 329 (2025).