Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Michigan

Al Zuhairi v. United States Department of State

Western District of MichiganPhillip J. GreenDecided March 27, 2026No. 1:25-cv-00568

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,914 written decisions from 2,661 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 1:24 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 1,606 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,371 (85%), measured November 3, 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 seeks a writ of mandamus to require the State Department to adjudicate the visa application within sixty days.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
Rather, Plaintiff asserts that the refusal is not a final decision because the consular officer, by requesting additional information, kept open the “administrative processing” of Mr. Qaddoori’s visa application.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Rather, Plaintiff asserts that the refusal is not a final decision because the consular officer, by requesting additional information, kept open the “administrative processing” of Mr. Qaddoori’s visa application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
On August 8, 2025, the State Department filed its motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction;
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
The Court DISMISSES the complaint (ECF No. 1) without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons discussed above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The Court DISMISSES the complaint (ECF No. 1) without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s due process claim will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Months pending 25.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
The State Department has submitted evidence that Mr. Qaddoori was interviewed by a consular officer at the U.S. Embassy in Ankara, Turkey, on February 14, 2024.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability applied; Mootness argument rejected; No duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal Read by a model
The Court further finds that Plaintiff otherwise lacks standing to bring this action on behalf of her fiancé, and that the doctrine of consular non-reviewability applies to this case.
Nationality Iraq Read by a model
her fiancé, Aiman Salih Qaddoori Qaddoori, is an Iraqi citizen.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-00568
Filed
May 16, 2025
Ended
March 27, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
315 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 3 (dismissed: lack of jurisdiction)

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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.