Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Michigan

Saad v. RISCH

Eastern District of MichiganLinda V. ParkerDecided August 15, 2019

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
Plaintiff Maha Saad (“Saad”) initiated this lawsuit requesting the Court order the Consulate in South Africa to make a determination on Saad’s application for visas for her two minor sons, Hamza and Yusuf Ahmed.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
On that same date2, however, the consular refused their immigrant visa applications pursuant to INA § 221(g), 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g), for administrative processing and a request for additional information concerning visa eligibility.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Plaintiffs claim that there has yet to be a determination on Saad’s two sons’ immigrant visa applications—and request this Court order the Consulate in South Africa to make a determination.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 8), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), is GRANTED;
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 8), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), is GRANTED
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ request for a writ of mandamus pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and dismisses the Plaintiffs’ complaint.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and dismisses the Plaintiffs’ complaint.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and dismisses the Plaintiffs’ complaint.
Months pending 40.1 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiffs allege Hamza and Yusuf appeared for an interview at the U.S. Consulate in Johannesburg, South Africa on April 12, 2016.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability applied Read by a model
Consequently, the present circumstance by no means is an instance expressly authorized by law, or an instance in which this Court deems fit to intervene in the determination of the Consular Office.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Saad is a U.S. citizen and the mother of Hamza and Yusuf Ahmed, also Plaintiffs in this action. (Pl. Resp., ECF No. 9 at 7, Pg. ID 95.) Hamza and Yusuf were born in Mozambique in 2010

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.