Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Ohio

Perez Frometa v. Director, Cleveland Field Office, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Northern District of OhioDan Aaron PolsterDecided March 31, 2026No. 1:26-cv-00427

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,996 written decisions from 2,731 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided November 12, 2026. Updated November 14, 2026 at 1:17 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 1,617 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,406 (87%), 1,039 of them in this group, measured November 14, 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
Defendants Kim Adams, Director, Cleveland Field Office, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services;
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
Plaintiff is a Cuban national who applied for permanent residency in the United States on August 7, 2025, using a form I-485.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Specifically, he seeks an order compelling his application be adjudicated within five days.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Because Plaintiff is not entitled to the relief sought in his complaint, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Finally, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §706(1) (“APA”) because the processing of his I-485 application has not been unreasonably delayed.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On March 12, 2026, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss setting forth several different bases for dismissal.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Because the complaint, even when construed in Plaintiff’s favor, does not set forth an unreasonable delay of the I-485 application, it must be DISMISSED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Because Plaintiff is not entitled to the relief sought in his complaint, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Because the complaint, even when construed in Plaintiff’s favor, does not set forth an unreasonable delay of the I-485 application, it must be DISMISSED.
Months pending 6.5 months from the application to the suit; 7.8 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff is a Cuban national who applied for permanent residency in the United States on August 7, 2025, using a form I-485.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablenot reached
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesnot reached
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
Given the onslaught of immigration cases in our country, the Court cannot say that a six-toseven-month delay is unreasonable.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Cuba Read by a model
Plaintiff is a Cuban national

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:26-cv-00427
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 10)
Filed
February 20, 2026
Ended
March 31, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
39 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.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.