Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of New York

Seraj v. U.S Department of State

Northern District of New YorkMae Avila D'AgostinoDecided August 21, 2026No. 1:25-cv-01121

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
Plaintiffs allege that Plaintiff Attaullah Seraj is a United States citizen and his son, Plaintiff Noorullah Seraj,has a pending i mmigrant visa application which the Consulate has failed to adjudicate.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
applications for immigrant visas on February 14,2024. The CCD shows that on the same date ,the consular officer refused each of the visa applications under [t he Immigration and Nationality Act (" IN A")]§ 221(g) ,8 U.S.C. § 1201(g).
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Plaintiffs ask this Court to compel Defendants to adjudicate the visa application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
ORDERS that Defendant's motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 13) is GRANTED
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
Thus, conversion of the motion to dismiss to one for summary judgment is appropriate.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Presently before the Court is Defendants'motion to dismiss the complaint.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
ORDERS that Plaintif fs' complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice and without leave to amend;
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in Defendant s' favor and close this case;
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
Plaintiff s ha ve failed to sufficiently establish an unreasonable delay under the APA and ,therefore, they arenot entitled to mandamus relief.
Months pending 18.2 months from the application to the suit; 30.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
executed applications for immigrant visas on February 14,2024.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonnot reached
  • 2. Congressional timetablenot reached
  • 3. Human health and welfarenot reached
  • 4. Competing prioritiesnot reached
  • 5. Interests prejudicednot reached
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected Read by a model
In such a situation, the doctrine of consular nonreviewability does not apply.
I-130 category Family preference Read by a model
The CCD reflects that Noorullah SERAJ,his spouse ,and four of his children appeared for a consular interview

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-01121
Filed
August 20, 2025
Ended
August 21, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
366 days
How it ended
Ended, outcome not recorded
From the record
terminated; no disposition recorded

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.