Mandamus decisions / District of Maryland
Mohamed v. United States Department of State
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
Even if Plaintiffs had established that the Department of State has a non-discretionary duty to act on their visa applications, they have not shown that the Department’s action has been “unreasonably delayed.” |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
DS-260 (immigrant visa)
Read by a model
Plaintiffs brought this suit to compel action on the pending visa application and to compel the government to schedule an interview. |
| What the suit asked for |
Schedule an interview
Read by a model
Plaintiffs brought this suit to compel action on the pending visa application and to compel the government to schedule an interview. |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
For the reasons set forth in this Memorandum Opinion, Defendant’s Motion (ECF No. 23) is GRANTED. |
| Motion decided |
Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
Read by a model
The Court declines to exercise its jurisdiction to construe the Motion as one for summary judgment, and will construe the Motion as a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim. |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
Defendants have styled their motion asa Motion to Dismiss, or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment. |
| Disposition |
Dismissed
The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness.
Read by a model
For the reasons set forth in this Memorandum Opinion, Defendant’s Motion (ECF No. 23) is GRANTED. |
| Prevailing party |
Government
Read by a model
For the reasons set forth in this Memorandum Opinion, Defendant’s Motion (ECF No. 23) is GRANTED. |
| The delay claim |
Dismissed
Read by a model
Dismiss Plaintiffs’ mandamus and APA claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. |
| The other claims |
Dismissed
Read by a model
Therefore, because Plaintiffs’ due process claims lack merit, dismissal would be appropriate even if the Court had subject matter jurisdiction. |
| Months pending | Not stated Read by a model |
| TRAC factors |
The court weighed the TRAC factors
TRAC factors one and two favor Defendants. |
| The government's delay arguments |
First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted
Read by a model
The National Visa Center “schedules appointments in the chronological order of the documentarily complete cases.” |
| Threshold rulings | None Read by a model |
| Nationality |
Eritrea
Read by a model
The Plaintiffs are citizens of Eritrea |
Other orders in this case
The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision, this one. How decisions are grouped into cases.
| Decision | Decided | Judge | Disposition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mohamed v. United States Department of State | May 31, 2024 | A. David RETCopperthite | Dismissed |
| Mohamed v. United States Department of StateThis decisionThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted | May 31, 2024 | A. David Copperthite | Dismissed |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 1:23-cv-01857
- Filed
- July 11, 2023
- Ended
- May 31, 2024
- Suit's filing to its end
- 325 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.
Supreme Court and Fourth 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
-
Sesay v. United States, 984 F.3d 312
Fourth Circuit, January 5, 2021. Consular nonreviewability bars review of a relative's visa refusal; under Din and Trump v. Hawaii a valid statutory citation satisfies Mandel, and the court will not look behind it absent a particularized showing of bad faith.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 4 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.
-
Gonzalez v. Cuccinelli, 985 F.3d 357
Fourth Circuit, January 14, 2021. Courts may review delay in placing U-visa petitioners on the waitlist under the TRAC factors and should not dismiss such claims at the pleading stage, but lack jurisdiction over delay in pre-waitlist work-permit requests, a point on which the Sixth Circuit disagrees.
ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Rejected in the Sixth Circuit by Barrios Garcia v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 25 F.4th 430 (2022).
-
Lovo v. Miller, 107 F.4th 199
Fourth Circuit, July 3, 2024. The 'decision or action' language of § 1182(a)(9)(B)(v), which the court treated as coextensive with § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), does not reach USCIS inaction, so a district court may hear a claim that USCIS unreasonably delayed a provisional unlawful-presence waiver.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 5 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-07; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.