Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Minnesota

Teso v. Mayorkas

District of MinnesotaWilhelmina M. WrightDecided February 28, 2023No. 0:22-cv-01300

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
On July 25, 2019, Deratu H.S. appeared before consular officials in Ethiopia for reconsideration of her initial visa application using the reclassified Petition.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
On July 9, 2014, Deratu H.S. used the F2A Petition to apply for an immigrant visa before consular officials in Ethiopia.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs allege that Deratu H.S.’s reapplication remains unadjudicated and that Plaintiffs have suffered an unreasonable delay because of this “long overdue” adjudication.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons addressed below, Defendants’ motion is granted and Plaintiffs’ amended complaint is dismissed without prejudice.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ amended complaint.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ amended complaint.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the reasons addressed below, Defendants’ motion is granted and Plaintiffs’ amended complaint is dismissed without prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons addressed below, Defendants’ motion is granted and Plaintiffs’ amended complaint is dismissed without prejudice.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Defendants’ motion is granted and Plaintiffs’ amended complaint is dismissed without prejudice.
Months pending 44 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
the reapplication that Plaintiffs allege Deratu H.S. submitted in 2019
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability applied Read by a model
To the extent that Plaintiffs’ claim pertains to the initial F2A visa application that Plaintiffs allege Deratu H.S. submitted and consular officials denied in 2014, the consular nonreviewability doctrine bars Plaintiffs’ claim.
I-130 category Family preference Read by a model
Because of a documentation issue regarding Deratu H.S.’s age, consular officials denied her visa application but automatically reclassified her underlying Petition as F2B, rather than F2A.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 0:22-cv-01300
Filed
May 13, 2022
Ended
February 28, 2023
Suit's filing to its end
291 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 Eighth 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.