Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Indiana

Mufti v. Lynch

Northern District of IndianaSpringmannDecided June 7, 2016

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 USCIS Read by a model
The record indicates that USCIS adjudicated the Plaintiffs 1-130 petition, and that on November 18, 2014, a consular officer issued the Plaintiffs spouse an immigrant visa.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa); I-129F (fiancé(e) petition) Read by a model
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants, acting in their official capacities, unreasonably delayed the processing of immigrant visa petitions under Form 1-130 (Petition for Alien Relative) and Form I-129F (Petition for Alien Fiancé(e)).
What the suit asked for Not recorded Read by a model
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 12] is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
The Defendants specifically move to dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) (lack of subject matter jurisdiction) and 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
This matter is now before the Court on a Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 12] and Memorandum in Support [ECF No. 13], filed by the Defendants on December 31, 2015.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs claims for injunctive relief — if any — appear to have been rendered moot.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs claims for injunctive relief — if any — appear to have been rendered moot.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs claims for injunctive relief — if any — appear to have been rendered moot.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
For all of these reasons, the Plaintiffs claims for monetary damages are dismissed
Months pending 92.5 months from the application to the suit; 50.5 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
on November 18, 2014, a consular officer issued the Plaintiffs spouse an immigrant visa.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs claims for injunctive relief — if any — appear to have been rendered moot.
Nationality Pakistan Read by a model
Sidra Zubair Mufti (“Mrs. Mufti”), a citizen of Pakistan
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
the Plaintiff, a U.S. citizen, married Sidra Zubair Mufti (“Mrs. Mufti”), a citizen of Pakistan, in Karachi, Pakistan.

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 Seventh 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.