Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Ohio

Aguirre v. Trump

Northern District of OhioPatricia A. GaughanDecided September 14, 2026

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 Department of State Read by a model
Rather, DOS is the agency responsible for adjudicating Benhrima’s Visa Application.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiffs then processed Benhrima’s immigrant visa application (“Benhrima’s Visa Application”) through the National Visa Center and Benhrima was interviewed at the U.S. Consulate in Casablanca on March 7, 2023.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
a final adjudication of Plaintiffs’ Visa Application
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For all the aforementioned reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
For all the aforementioned reasons, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ request that this Court compel Defendants to approve Benhrima’s Visa Application.6 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the related claims is GRANTED.7
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
This matter is before the Court upon the Motion to Dismiss filed by the defendants.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
This refusal then moots Plaintiffs’ claims seeking a final adjudication of Benhrima’s Visa Application.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
This refusal then moots Plaintiffs’ claims seeking a final adjudication of Benhrima’s Visa Application.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
This refusal then moots Plaintiffs’ claims seeking a final adjudication of Benhrima’s Visa Application.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction to review Defendants’ actions collateral to Benhrima’s final order of removal. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss these claims is GRANTED.
Months pending 34.9 months from the application to the suit; 38.4 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
It appears that nonparty DOS has since refused Benhrima’s Visa Application. (Doc. 8-4 (noting refusal date of May 19, 2026).)
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot; No duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal Read by a model
This refusal then moots Plaintiffs’ claims seeking a final adjudication of Benhrima’s Visa Application.
Nationality Morocco Read by a model
Plaintiff Mohamed Amine Benhrima (“Benhrima”) is a citizen of Morocco
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
On January 13, 2017, Benhrima filed a motion to reopen the removal proceedings, arguing that Benhrima married a U.S. citizen and Benhrima never received the NTA.

How the case ended

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

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.