Mandamus decisions / District of Massachusetts
Sunallah v. Department of Homeland Security
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
Following that appointment, the consular officer “refused Mr. Sunallah’s application for an immigrant visa under Section 221(g) of the [INA] .” |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa)
Read by a model
NVC received a properly filed Form I -864 Affidavit of Support and a Form DS -260 Application for Immigrant Visa on behalf of Mr. Sunallah. |
| What the suit asked for |
Decide the application
Read by a model
Her complaint seeks a writ of mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 compelling the defendants to adjudicate her I-130 petition and her son’s visa application (Count I) |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF 15, is GRANTED. |
| Motion decided |
Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction
Read by a model
The defendants then moved to dismiss Ms. Sunallah’s claims as moot under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
The defendants then moved to dismiss Ms. Sunallah’s claims as moot under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). |
| Disposition |
Dismissed as moot
Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted.
Read by a model
Her claims are, accordingly, moot. |
| Prevailing party |
Neither side
Read by a model
Her claims are, accordingly, moot. |
| The delay claim |
Moot: the agency acted
Read by a model
Her claims are, accordingly, moot. |
| Months pending |
89 months from the application to the suit; 97.9 months from the application to the agency's action
Read by a model
on February 12, 2026, the consular officer refused Mr. Sunallah’s application under 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g) |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings |
Held moot
Read by a model
Her claims are, accordingly, moot. |
| I-130 category |
Family preference
Read by a model
In September 2011, she filed an I-130 petition with USCIS on behalf of her son, Ahmad Sunallah, seeking to classify him as an unmarried adult son of a lawful permanent resident and thereby render him eligible to apply for an F2B visa. |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 1:25-cv-11323
- Filed
- May 12, 2025
- Ended
- August 18, 2026
- Suit's filing to its end
- 463 days
- How it ended
- Ended once the agency acted
- From the record
- stipulated dismissal 2026-08-18
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).