Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Illinois

Bangert v. U.S. Embassy In Ethiopia, Consular Section

Northern District of IllinoisRebecca R. PallmeyerDecided July 8, 2025

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 National Visa Center Read by a model
The NVC schedules interview appointments in the order that pending applications become documentarily complete.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
This dispute concerns the application of Bangert’s wife, Afomiya Animaw, for an immediate-relative immigrant visa.
What the suit asked for Schedule an interview Read by a model
His complaint does not state whether or when Animaw submitted the required visa application forms or fees to the NVC, or even whether Animaw had completed her application prior to Bangert’s filing suit demanding that the NVC schedule her interview.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons described above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss 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 have moved to dismiss all of Bangert’s claims, either for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) or for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
For the reasons described above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the reasons described above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons described above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Bangert may have a claim under the APA for unreasonable delay in adjudicating Animaw’s visa application. For now, that claim as against the NVC and the Embassy is dismissed without prejudice.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
These claims are all dismissed with prejudice.
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
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability applied; Consular nonreviewability rejected; Held moot; APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
First, to the extent Bangert seeks an order directing the remaining Defendants to approve Animaw’s visa application, his APA claim is barred by the doctrine of consular nonreviewability.
Nationality Ethiopia Read by a model
Dylan Bangert’s wife, Afomiya Animaw, is a citizen and resident of Ethiopia.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
This dispute concerns the application of Bangert’s wife, Afomiya Animaw, for an immediate-relative immigrant visa.

How the case ended

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

Supreme Court and Seventh 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.