Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Ohio

Zheng v. Secretary, Department of Homeland Security

Southern District of OhioMatthew W. McFarlandDecided May 11, 2026No. 1:25-cv-00446

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 DHS Read by a model
Plaintiff listed Kristi Noem, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and Pamela Bondi, Attorney General of the United States, as Defendants at the time.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
On July 1, 2025, Plaintiff Fei Zheng filed a Complaint to seek declaratory, injunctive, and mandamus relief ordering Defendants to adjudicate her 1-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
On July 1, 2025, Plaintiff Fei Zheng filed a Complaint to seek declaratory, injunctive, and mandamus relief ordering Defendants to adjudicate her 1-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 11) is GRANTED;
Motion decided Other motion to dismiss Read by a model
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 11) is GRANTED
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 11).
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED AS MOOT
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED AS MOOT
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Accordingly, the denial of Plaintiff's 1-485 application renders all of her claims and requested relief moot.
Months pending Not stated at filing The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Accordingly, the denial of Plaintiff's 1-485 application renders all of her claims and requested relief moot.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-00446
Filed
July 1, 2025
Ended
May 11, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
314 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
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 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.