Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Michigan

Sankari v. United States Department of State

Eastern District of MichiganGershwin A. DrainDecided May 30, 2025No. 2:24-cv-12975

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
On October 31, 2023, a consular officer at the United States Embassy in Ankara, Turkey conducted visa interviews for Mr. and Mrs. Sankari.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiff provided his parents’ immigrant visa case numbers.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
he asks the Court to compel Defendants to complete administrative processing and render a final decision on their applications.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the following reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 9] is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Government’s Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) [ECF No. 9] is GRANTED, and this case is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss, which is presently before the Court.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Government’s Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) [ECF No. 9] is GRANTED, and this case is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Government’s Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) [ECF No. 9] is GRANTED, and this case is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Therefore, Plaintiff lacks standing to seek relief under the APA or Mandamus Act.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s due process claim must be dismissed.
Months pending 12.3 months from the application to the suit; 19 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
A consular officer at the Embassy conducted the interviews of Mr. and Mrs. Sankari on October 31, 2023.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings No duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal Read by a model
The problem with Plaintiff’s approach is that he does not point to any law or regulation requiring Defendants to complete administrative processing, and thereby re-adjudicate a visa application that has already been refused.
Nationality Turkey Read by a model
Mr. and Mrs. Sankari are Turkish citizens who reside in Turkey.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Plaintiff Amir Abdulmonem Sankari (“Plaintiff”), a United States citizen, is the relative visa petitioner for his parents, Abdulmonem Sankari (“Mr. Sankari”) and Sabah Sankari (“Mrs. Sankari”).

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:24-cv-12975
Filed
November 8, 2024
Ended
May 30, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
203 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.