Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Massachusetts

Wang v. United States

District of MassachusettsAllison D. BurroughsDecided October 21, 2025No. 1:25-cv-11310

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
Luo has sent numerous email inquiries to the Consulate, which, beyond stating that his application is under administrative processing, has offered no substantive response.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
Although not clearly stated in the Complaint, the Court assumes that after Wang’s petition was approved, Luo applied for H-4 status.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Plaintiffs contend that Defendants have not yet issued a final decision because Luo’s petition remains in administrative processing.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss, [ECF No. 9], is GRANTED without prejudice.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Presently before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss, [ECF No. 9], which is, for the reasons stated herein, GRANTED without prejudice.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss, [ECF No. 9], is GRANTED without prejudice.
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 above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss, [ECF No. 9], is GRANTED without prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss, [ECF No. 9], is GRANTED without prejudice.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
In sum, the TRAC factors do not support a finding of unreasonable delay, and the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under the APA, and, accordingly, the MVA.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
These claims are, accordingly, dismissed.
Months pending 9 months from the application to the suit; 14.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On August 8, 2024, Wang and Luo appeared for a visa interview at the U.S. Consulate in Vancouver.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiffs fail under the first two TRAC factors.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Moving Luo to the “‘front of the line’ would come at the expense of others who shoulder equally taxing burdens.”
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found Read by a model
Here, absent guidance from the First Circuit, the Court will assume that the consular nonreviewability doctrine does not preclude judicial review of Plaintiffs’ claim to compel agency action under the APA.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-11310
Filed
May 9, 2025
Ended
October 21, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
165 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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.