Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of New York

Ororokuma v. U.S. Department of State National Visa Center (NVC)

Eastern District of New YorkNatasha C. MerleDecided July 29, 2026No. 1:25-cv-01788

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 National Visa Center Read by a model
Plaintiff here argues that she “challenges the [National Visa Center’s] statutory miscalculation, not a visa refusal.”
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
A month and a half after this suit was filed, on May 14, 2025, Ubuara executed an immigrant visa application before a consular officer at the U.S. Embassy in Cotonou, Benin.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Thus, to the extent that plaintiff’s Complaint seeks an order compelling the government to act on her son’s application, that claim must be dismissed.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the government’s motion is GRANTED, and plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
requiring dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1), and that the consular officer’s determination that he is ineligible for a visa is unreviewable, requiring dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is the government’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
To the extent that plaintiff’s Complaint is aimed at undue delay, it is moot, because her son’s visa application has already been adjudicated.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
To the extent that plaintiff’s Complaint is aimed at undue delay, it is moot, because her son’s visa application has already been adjudicated.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
To the extent that plaintiff’s Complaint is aimed at undue delay, it is moot, because her son’s visa application has already been adjudicated.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Thus, to the extent that plaintiff’s Complaint seeks a judgment declaring that her son was a child under the CSPA, that claim must be dismissed as well.
Months pending 131.1 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
on May 14, 2025, Ubuara executed an immigrant visa application before a consular officer at the U.S. Embassy in Cotonou, Benin. Dus Decl. ¶ 4. The consular officer denied the application.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability applied; Held moot Read by a model
To the extent that plaintiff’s Complaint is aimed at directing the government to recognize plaintiff’s son as a “child” under the CSPA, the doctrine of consular nonreviewability bars that requested relief as well.
I-130 category Family preference Read by a model
She filed for a visa in the F11 visa category (i.e., on the basis that she was the unmarried daughter of a U.S. citizen)

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-01788
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 20), deciding the motion (ECF 13)
Filed
April 1, 2025
Ended
July 30, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
485 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
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.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision, and the motion number is read from that entry's text. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.