Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Ohio

Erulandi v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

Northern District of OhioPatricia Anne GaughanDecided November 2, 2026No. 1:26-cv-01086

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,948 written decisions from 2,691 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided November 10, 2026. Updated November 11, 2026 at 1:21 p.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 1,632 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,398 (86%), measured November 11, 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
Defendant the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS” or “Defendant”) determines whether each applicant has established eligibility under the governing statute and regulations.
Form or filing I-914 (T visa); I-914A Read by a model
Based on these experiences, Plaintiff applied for a T visa by filing Form I-914 with supporting evidence on January 27, 2025. On the same date, Plaintiff submitted the three associated I-914A applications for his spouse and two children.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiff filed this action on May 10, 2026, seeking a final adjudication of his T visa.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons that follow, the Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
When considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the factual allegations of the complaint must be taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
This matter is before the Court upon defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For all the aforementioned reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For all the aforementioned reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For all the aforementioned reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED.
Months pending 15.4 months from the application to the suit; 21.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Based on these experiences, Plaintiff applied for a T visa by filing Form I-914 with supporting evidence on January 27, 2025.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the applicant
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
Taken together, the first factor weighs against finding that Plaintiff has alleged an unreasonable delay claim.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted; Visa availability accepted Read by a model
“[T]he oldest applications receiv[e] the highest priority for processing.” Id. Importantly, the Amended Complaint and Writ does not allege that Defendant is not following its own regulations.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality India Read by a model
Here, pro se plaintiff Balamurugan Erulandi (“Plaintiff”) is a citizen of India.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:26-cv-01086
Filed
May 10, 2026
Ended
November 2, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
176 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2026-11-02 for the defendants, ground not stated

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 11, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.