Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of New York

Khan v. Armstrong

Northern District of New YorkAnthony J. BrindisiDecided July 23, 2026No. 1:25-cv-01033

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
Plaintiff alleges that, despite satisfying all documentary requirements for processing, neither the NVC nor the United States Embassy in Islamabad had scheduled an immigrant visa interview or issued a final decision on her visa petition as of the date of the complaint’s filing.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Congress has supplied no timetable governing the completion of administrative processing for immigrant visa applications, and plaintiff identifies no statute or regulation requiring adjudication within a specified period.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
As relief, plaintiff seeks an order compelling defendants to schedule a consular interview for the beneficiary and derivative applicants and to issue a final decision on the underlying visa petition.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) is DENIED, and defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is GRANTED. The complaint is dismissed.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) is DENIED, and defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is GRANTED.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On May 6, 2026, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
The complaint is dismissed.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is GRANTED. The complaint is dismissed.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is GRANTED. The complaint is dismissed.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
The Court will also dismiss plaintiff’s remaining counts for failure to state a claim.
Months pending 7.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
the beneficiary and derivative applicants appeared for a consular interview at the United States Embassy in Islamabad on December 15, 2025.
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 needednot reached
Read by a model
Plaintiff has not opposed defendants’ motion and, in any event, has offered no basis other than the passage of a relatively short amount of time from which the Court could infer that defendants have unreasonably delayed adjudication of the applications.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
granting the requested relief would necessarily require defendants to prioritize plaintiff’s applications ahead of others awaiting adjudication.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Mootness argument rejected; Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found Read by a model
Accordingly, the doctrine of consular nonreviewability does not bar plaintiff’s claims.
I-130 category Family preference Read by a model
Plaintiff Shaheen Khan is a United States citizen. Compl. ¶ 1. On April 17, 2007, plaintiff filed an I-130 Petition for Alien Relative with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) on behalf of her sister, Shamim Khan,

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-01033
Filed
August 3, 2025
Ended
July 23, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
354 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
judgment 2026-07-23 for the defendants, ground not stated

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