Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Ohio
Chinweoke Ojukwu v. ICE Detroit Field Office Director for the Michigan and Ohio, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Enforcement of Removal Operations (ERO)
Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener
2,917 written decisions from 2,664 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 7:07 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 |
ICE
Read by a model
Ms. Ojukwu seeks a writ of mandamus against Respondents Robert Lynch, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement Field Office Director for Michigan and Ohio; |
|---|---|
| Form or filing | None named Read by a model |
| What the suit asked for |
Some other action
Read by a model
Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to compel Respondents to reopen her removal proceedings, provide written notice of her third country destination, |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
Because the Court determines that it lacks jurisdiction over this action, it DENIES Petitioner’s motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 9) and DISMISSES this action. |
| Motion decided |
Preliminary injunction or TRO
Read by a model
it DENIES Petitioner’s motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 9) |
| Whose motion |
The plaintiff's motion
Read by a model
Petitioner again moves for a temporary restraining order to enjoin Respondents from removing her from the United States during the pendency of this action. |
| Disposition |
Dismissed
The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness.
Read by a model
Because the Court determines that it lacks jurisdiction over this action, it DENIES Petitioner’s motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 9) and DISMISSES this action. |
| Prevailing party |
Government
Read by a model
Because the Court determines that it lacks jurisdiction over this action, it DENIES Petitioner’s motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 9) and DISMISSES this action. |
| The other claims |
Dismissed
Read by a model
Because the Court determines that it lacks jurisdiction over this action, it DENIES Petitioner’s motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 9) and DISMISSES this action. |
| Months pending | Not stated Read by a model |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings | None Read by a model |
| Nationality |
Nigeria
Read by a model
Petitioner Ifeoma Ada Chinweke Ojukwu, a native and citizen of Nigeria |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 4:26-cv-02483
- Filed
- September 22, 2026
- Ended
- September 26, 2026
- Suit's filing to its end
- 4 days
- How it ended
- Ended, outcome not recorded
- From the record
- terminated; no disposition recorded
A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why.
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.
-
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55
Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Barrios Garcia v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 25 F.4th 430
Sixth Circuit, February 10, 2022. Courts may review and compel unreasonably delayed U-visa waitlist placement and bona fide determinations under TRAC, though not discretionary pre-waitlist work authorization, disagreeing in part with the Fourth Circuit's Gonzalez.
ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. No verified adverse treatment has been found so far. All 2 precedential decisions citing this case have been reviewed as of 2026-10-29.