Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Michigan

Masih v. Rubio

Eastern District of MichiganShalina D. KumarDecided February 20, 2026No. 4:25-cv-10987

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
The consular officer at the United States Embassy in India refused Masih’s visa application pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1201 (g).
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
At the conclusion of the interview, the consular officer refused Masih’s visa application under 8 U.S.C. § 1201 (g).
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
They seek to compel the Secretary of State and other federal officials to further adjudicate Masih’s immigration visa application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Rule 12(b)(1) motions for lack of subject matter jurisdiction may challenge either (1) the facial sufficiency of the pleading itself, or (2) the factual grounds for invoking subject matter jurisdiction.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss. ECF No. 6. This case is now closed.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss. ECF No. 6. This case is now closed.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss. ECF No. 6. This case is now closed.
Months pending 16.1 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On October 17, 2024, Masih appeared for a consular interview at the United States Embassy in Mumbai, India.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings No duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal Read by a model
But these decisions ignore the plain reading of both the INA and its implementing regulations in that neither provision requires a consular officer “to reach a more definitive decision on an application that has already been refused.”
Nationality India Read by a model
William is a U.S. citizen, and her father, Masih, is a citizen and resident of India.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
William is a U.S. citizen, and her father, Masih, is a citizen and resident of India. William filed a Form I-130 Petition for Alien Relative (“Petition”) on Masih’s behalf.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 4:25-cv-10987
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 12), deciding the motion (ECF 6)
Filed
April 7, 2025
Ended
February 20, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
319 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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, and the motion number is read from that entry's text. 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.