Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Michigan

Sharif v. National Visa Center

Eastern District of MichiganSusan K. DeClercqDecided August 29, 2025No. 2:24-cv-13305

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 Not recorded Read by a model
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
to compel United States immigration officials to issue a decision on Alsaghery’s visa application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
ORDER SUA SPONTE DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT (ECF No. 1) FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The court on its own Read by a model
ORDER SUA SPONTE DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT (ECF No. 1) FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Thus, considering all factors, dismissal of Plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to prosecute is warranted.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:24-cv-13305
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 20)
Filed
December 11, 2024
Ended
August 29, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
261 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
idb disp 2 (dismissed: want of prosecution)

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why.

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.