Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Ohio

Chhajed v. Jaddou

Southern District of OhioEdmund A. Sargus Jr.Decided March 27, 2024No. 2:23-cv-00483

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 USCIS Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ complaint arises from USCIS’s allegedly unreasonably delay processing of their I-526 petitions.
Form or filing I-526 (investor petition) Read by a model
Persons who apply for status through this program file “Form I-526 Petitions.”
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Due to this delay and the harms they have suffered, Plaintiffs brought the current action alleging “unreasonable delay” of an agency action and seeking to compel USCIS to adjudicate their I-526 petitions.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss to the extent it seeks dismissal of Plaintiff Redondo on mootness grounds and DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss as to the rest of its arguments.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
The Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss to the extent it seeks dismissal of Plaintiff Redondo on mootness grounds and DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss as to the rest of its arguments.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendant Ur M. Jaddou’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
The Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss to the extent it seeks dismissal of Plaintiff Redondo on mootness grounds and DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss as to the rest of its arguments.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
The Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss to the extent it seeks dismissal of Plaintiff Redondo on mootness grounds and DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss as to the rest of its arguments.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
The Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss to the extent it seeks dismissal of Plaintiff Redondo on mootness grounds and DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss as to the rest of its arguments.
Months pending Not stated at filing The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
To this date—more than four years after Plaintiffs first applied for status—their I-526 petitions remain unresolved.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the applicant
  • 2. Congressional timetableneutral
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
Accordingly, the first TRAC factor weighs in favor of Plaintiffs.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing rejected; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ allegation that Defendant inconsistently expedites some EB-5 applications renders it plausible that Defendant deviates from the agency’s rule of reason.
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
The Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss to the extent it seeks dismissal of Plaintiff Redondo on mootness grounds and DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss as to the rest of its arguments.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:23-cv-00483
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 18)
Filed
January 31, 2023
Ended
May 1, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
456 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
stipulated dismissal 2024-04-26; idb disp 13 (dismissed: settled)

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why. Other suits in this court.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

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