Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Ohio

Jama v. Petrovich

Southern District of OhioEdmund A. SargusDecided March 26, 2026No. 2:25-cv-00021

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
The State Department, through the NVC and the U.S. Embassy in Kigali, was responsible for classifying Mr. Abdirahman’s family-preference category.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
On March 3, 2025, Mr. Abdirahman appeared at the U.S. Embassy in Kigali, Rwanda, and applied for an immigrant visa.
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
In January 2025, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit “to compel Defendants, and those acting under them, to properly apply” the CSPA to Mr. Abdirahman and reclassify him as an “immediate relative.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants’ Motion.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
They also move to dismiss under Federal Rule of Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. (Id., PageID 51.) The Court addresses each below. I. Motion to Dismiss Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
The other claims The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Plaintiff’s Complaint against the following Defendants in their official capacities remains:
Months pending 0.4 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
Mr. Abdirahman’s March 2025 visa refusal was not final.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
The government's delay arguments Visa availability rejected Read by a model
The fact that no visas are available to him is the very harm that Plaintiffs seek to prevent and Defendants cannot rely on that outcome as a ground for dismissal.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected Read by a model
Rather, Plaintiffs challenge Mr. Abdirahman’s reclassification to an F1 family-preference category. Thus, consular nonreviewability is inapplicable here.
I-130 category Family preference Read by a model
Without notice, Mr. Abdirahman’s category was changed from F2A to F1, an adult child of a U.S. citizen.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:25-cv-00021
Filed
January 10, 2025
Status
Pending as of the last docket check

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.