Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Ohio
Toukam Biadjeu Tchetgnia v. Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener
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 |
USCIS
Read by a model
The application was accepted as "properly filed" that same day, but the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services have not yet rendered a decision on Plaintiff's application. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
I-589 (asylum)
Read by a model
On March 18, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Form I-589 asylum application. |
| What the suit asked for |
Decide the asylum application
Read by a model
Thus, any writ of mandamus or other order issued by this Court compelling an agency to act on Plaintiff's I-589 application would be improper. |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. 11) |
| Motion decided |
Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction
Read by a model
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(l), a party may move to dismiss a claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction by raising a facial attack or a factual attack. |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 11). |
| Disposition |
Dismissed as moot
Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted.
Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims are moot, and this Court does not have jurisdiction. |
| Prevailing party |
Neither side
Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims are moot, and this Court does not have jurisdiction. |
| The delay claim |
Moot: the agency acted
Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims are moot, and this Court does not have jurisdiction. |
| The other claims |
Moot: the agency acted
Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims are moot, and this Court does not have jurisdiction. |
| Months pending |
104.3 months from the application to the suit
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
On March 18, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Form I-589 asylum application. |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings |
Held moot
Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims are moot, and this Court does not have jurisdiction. |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 1:25-cv-00089
- Filed
- February 13, 2025
- Ended
- September 26, 2025
- Suit's filing to its end
- 225 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.
-
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55
Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Barrios Garcia v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 25 F.4th 430
Sixth Circuit, February 10, 2022. Courts may review and compel unreasonably delayed U-visa waitlist placement and bona fide determinations under TRAC, though not discretionary pre-waitlist work authorization, disagreeing in part with the Fourth Circuit's Gonzalez.
ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. No verified adverse treatment has been found so far. All 2 precedential decisions citing this case have been reviewed as of 2026-10-29.