Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Ohio
Moses Ahmed v. Rubio
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
Indeed, "the only duty that the statute or regulations impose on consular officers is a duty to grant or refuse a visa." |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa)
Read by a model
Plaintiff Hanan's visa application was denied pursuant to Section 221(g) |
| What the suit asked for |
Finish 221(g) processing
Read by a model
Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant has a clear, non-discretionary duty to adjudicate Plaintiff Hanan's visa application |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 4) is GRANTED. |
| Motion decided |
Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction
Read by a model
The Court must address the Rule 12(b)(l) portion of the motion first. |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 4). |
| Disposition |
Dismissed
The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness.
Read by a model
Plaintiffs' Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; |
| Prevailing party |
Government
Read by a model
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 4) is GRANTED; |
| The delay claim |
Dismissed
Read by a model
Plaintiffs therefore have no standing to sue, and this case is subject to dismissal without prejudice. |
| Months pending |
28.5 months from the application to the suit; 38.3 months from the application to the court's decision
Read by a model
executed a visa application before a consular officer at the United States Embassy in Djibouti in June 2023. |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings |
Mootness argument rejected; No duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal
Read by a model
As an initial matter, the Court clarifies that this is an issue of standing, and not of mootness, as the denial of Plaintiff Hasan' s visa application took place prior to the filing of this action. |
| Nationality |
Yemen
Read by a model
who is a Yemeni national |
| I-130 category |
Family preference
Read by a model
received an immigrant visa resulting from an F3 family-based immigrant visa petition filed by his father in 1997. |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 1:25-cv-00788
- Filed
- October 29, 2025
- Ended
- August 25, 2026
- Suit's filing to its end
- 300 days
- How it ended
- Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
- From the record
- order 2026-08-25 for the defendants, ground not stated
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.
-
Department of State v. Muñoz, 602 U.S. 899
Supreme Court, June 21, 2024. A U.S. citizen has no fundamental liberty interest in a noncitizen spouse's admission, so marriage alone entitles the citizen neither to Mandel review of the consular refusal nor to an explanation beyond the statutory citation.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. 667
Supreme Court, June 26, 2018. Mandel's facially-legitimate-and-bona-fide standard governs constitutional challenges to entry restrictions, and a citation to a valid statutory ground ordinarily satisfies it.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753
Supreme Court, June 29, 1972. When a visa refusal burdens a U.S. citizen's own constitutional rights, courts ask only whether the Executive gave a facially legitimate and bona fide reason and do not look behind it.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
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
-
Baaghil v. Miller, 1 F.4th 427
Sixth Circuit, June 14, 2021. Visa denials stood where the consulate gave a facially legitimate and bona fide reason, and a citizen's asserted liberty interest in a relative's admission adds no further process.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 3 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-10-29; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
-
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.