Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Michigan

Nagi v. Attorney General of the United States

Eastern District of MichiganLaurie J. MichelsonDecided April 15, 2026No. 2:25-cv-11967

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,948 written decisions from 2,691 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided November 10, 2026. Updated November 11, 2026 at 1:21 p.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 1,632 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,398 (86%), measured November 11, 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 USCIS Read by a model
USCIS, explains the government, generally adjudicates I-130 petitions “on a first in first out basis with priority based on country-by-country visa availability.”
Form or filing I-130 (relative petition) Read by a model
filed an I-130 “Petition for Alien Relative”
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
seeking a writ of mandamus and declaratory and injunctive relief “to compel” Defendants “to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ pending” petition.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS [7]
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Specifically, the motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) is denied as to the APA claim but granted as to the mandamus claim, and the motion to dismiss is granted in full under Rule 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss. (ECF No. 7.)
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
the motion to dismiss is granted in full under Rule 12(b)(6). As a result, the Court directs the clerk’s office to close the case.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
the motion to dismiss is granted in full under Rule 12(b)(6). As a result, the Court directs the clerk’s office to close the case.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Specifically, the motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) is denied as to the APA claim but granted as to the mandamus claim, and the motion to dismiss is granted in full under Rule 12(b)(6).
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiffs have thus failed to state a due process claim, such that the claim must be dismissed.
Months pending 8 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
The parties here largely agree on the length of the delay: eight months when the case was filed
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 applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededfavors the government
Read by a model
In all, factors one, two, four, and six weigh in favor of Defendants; factors three and five go to Plaintiffs.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ argument fails to persuade, however, because “[c]ourts have routinely found this system of adjudication to qualify as a ‘rule of reason’ under the first TRAC factor.”
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
Because the APA provides Plaintiffs with an adequate remedy if they can establish unreasonable delay in the adjudication of the application, the Court lacks jurisdiction over their mandamus claim.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Al Barka Nabil Nagi, a United States citizen, filed an I-130 “Petition for Alien Relative” with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on behalf of his spouse living in Yemen, Enas Mohammed Ahmed Mohammed Alzokari.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:25-cv-11967
Filed
June 30, 2025
Ended
April 15, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
289 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant

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 Sixth 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 11, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.