Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Ohio
Mosed Ahmed v. Attorney General Of The United States
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
The petition was received by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") on May 21, 2024- to date, there has been no decision from USCIS regarding Plaintiffs' application. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
I-130 (relative petition)
Read by a model
Ahmed filed a Form I-130 Petition for Alien Relative on behalf of his spouse, Plaintiff Aisha Mohammed Hamid Yahya Al-Jashoby who currently resides in Yemen. |
| What the suit asked for |
Decide the application
Read by a model
Defendants have a mandatory duty to adjudicate Plaintiffs' petition within a reasonable time-a duty which they have failed to fulfill. |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
For the following reasons, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6) is GRANTED. |
| Motion decided |
Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
Read by a model
Defendants seek dismissal of Plaintiffs' Complaint on two grounds: lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(l) as to Plaintiffs' Mandamus Act and APA claims, and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Rule 12(b)(6) as to Plaintiffs' Fifth Amendment due process claim. |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6). |
| Disposition |
Dismissed
The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness.
Read by a model
1. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6) is GRANTED; 2. Plaintiffs' Mandamus Act and APA claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; |
| Prevailing party |
Government
Read by a model
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6) is GRANTED; |
| The delay claim |
Dismissed
Read by a model
the Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' AP A and Mandamus Act claims and must dismiss them. |
| The other claims |
Dismissed
Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiffs have not stated a protected liberty interest, so their Fifth Amendment due process claim must be dismissed. |
| Months pending |
18.4 months from the application to the suit; 29.5 months from the application to the court's decision
Read by a model
The petition was received by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") on May 21, 2024 |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings | None Read by a model |
| I-130 category |
Family preference
Read by a model
a lawful permanent resident of the United States. (Compl., Doc. 1, ,I 55.) Ahmed filed a Form I-130 Petition for Alien Relative on behalf of his spouse |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 1:25-cv-00888
- Filed
- December 3, 2025
- Ended
- November 6, 2026
- Suit's filing to its end
- 338 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 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.
-
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
-
Barrios Garcia v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 25 F.4th 430
Sixth Circuit, February 10, 2022. Courts may review and compel unreasonably delayed U-visa waitlist placement and bona fide determinations under TRAC, though not discretionary pre-waitlist work authorization, disagreeing in part with the Fourth Circuit's Gonzalez.
ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. No verified adverse treatment has been found so far. All 2 precedential decisions citing this case have been reviewed as of 2026-11-08.