Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Wisconsin

Koier v. US Citizenship and Immigration Services

Eastern District of WisconsinBrett H LudwigDecided September 9, 2025No. 2:24-cv-01441

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
Accordingly, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the USCIS has a mandatory duty to verify and approve a Form I-130 petition within a reasonable time and the Court therefore has subject matter jurisdiction to review Plaintiffs’ claims.
Form or filing I-130 (relative petition) Read by a model
Plaintiffs invoke the APA and Mandamus Act and ask the Court to compel Defendants to verify and approve their Form I-130 petition.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs invoke the APA and Mandamus Act and ask the Court to compel Defendants to verify and approve their Form I-130 petition.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
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 the complaint, arguing that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims and that, even if jurisdiction exists, Plaintiffs’ allegations fail to state a claim.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 4, is GRANTED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, this Court is bound to follow that precedent and dismiss Plaintiffs claims for failure to state a claim.
Months pending 16.5 months from the application to the suit; 26.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On June 28, 2023, Koier filed a Form I-130 immigration petition
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted; Visa availability accepted Read by a model
To survive a motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs must set forth facts differentiating themselves from other Form I-130 petitioners waiting ahead of them for verification and approval.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
I-130 category Family preference Read by a model
Plaintiffs Brenda Khesani Koier, a lawful permanent resident, and her son, a minor living in South Africa

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:24-cv-01441
Filed
November 11, 2024
Ended
September 9, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
302 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 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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.