Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Ohio

Daniel v. Secretary, Department of Homeland Security

Southern District of OhioMatthew W. McFarlandDecided February 27, 2025No. 1:24-cv-00561

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 USCIS Read by a model
Plaintiffs brought this suit to petition Defendants Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Director of USCIS, and Field Office Director of the USCIS Cincinnati Field Office to adjudicate Plaintiffs' 1-130 petition.
Form or filing I-130 (relative petition) Read by a model
Plaintiffs had not received an adjudication on their I-130 petition.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs brought this suit to petition Defendants Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Director of USCIS, and Field Office Director of the USCIS Cincinnati Field Office to adjudicate Plaintiffs' 1-130 petition.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. 6)
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
For these reasons, this Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. 6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. 6).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Plaintiffs' case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and TERMINATED from the docket.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For these reasons, this Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. 6).
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiffs' case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and TERMINATED from the docket.
Months pending 48.1 months from the application to the suit; 52.7 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiffs Sylatia Daniel, a United States citizen, and Fousseynou Toure, a citizen of Mali and husband of Ms. Daniel, filed an 1-130 petition on October 6, 2020.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Mali Read by a model
Fousseynou Toure, a citizen of Mali
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Plaintiffs Sylatia Daniel, a United States citizen, and Fousseynou Toure, a citizen of Mali and husband of Ms. Daniel

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-00561
Filed
October 8, 2024
Ended
February 27, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
142 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 3 (dismissed: lack of jurisdiction)

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.