Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Minnesota

Amino Oyaye Mohamed and Abdifatah Mohamed Nur v. Marco Rubio

District of MinnesotaEric C. TostrudDecided December 10, 2025No. 0:25-cv-02216

Read the decisionOriginal on GovInfo

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
Plaintiffs Amino Oyaye Mohamed and her husband, Abdifatah Mohamed Nur, claim that State Department officials have taken too long to conclude their adjudication of Mr. Nur’s immigrant visa application.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
At some point in 2022, Mr. Nur applied for a visa by submitting a form DS-260 with the National Visa Center.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
They seek an order requiring Defendants to make a final decision on Mr. Nur’s visa application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 5] is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants seek the case’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 5] is GRANTED.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 5] is GRANTED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Months pending 41.3 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
At some point in 2022, Mr. Nur applied for a visa by submitting a form DS-260 with the National Visa Center.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety neededfavors the government
Read by a model
“Courts typically consider TRAC factors one and two together,” Yaghoubnezhad, 734 F. Supp. 3d at 105, and Plaintiffs have not alleged facts plausibly showing these factors are met here.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Here, the Complaint alleges no facts that might show why Mr. Nur’s application should move ahead of the “many thousands of people seeking an immediate-relative immigrant visa.”
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
On or about May 4, 2021, Ms. Mohamed petitioned to classify Mr. Nur as an immediate relative by filing a form I-130 Petition for Alien Relative.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 0:25-cv-02216
Filed
May 23, 2025
Ended
December 10, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
201 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant

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 Eighth 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.