Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Ohio

Sholanke v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Northern District of OhioDonald C. NugentDecided March 25, 2020No. 1:18-cv-01929

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
Ms. Sholanke’s Form □□□□□ Petition was denied by Defendants United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), and that decision was affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”).
Form or filing I-130 (relative petition) Read by a model
This case concerns the denial of a Form I-130 Petition for Alien Relative
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
Defendants’ Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (ECF #15) is GRANTED. This case is hereby dismissed.
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (ECF #15) is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Counter Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
Defendants moved this Court for Judgment as a Matter of Law (ECF #15) and Plaintiffs opposed the Motion, contemporaneously filing a Counter Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF #17).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (ECF #15) is GRANTED. This case is hereby dismissed.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Accordingly, judgment is granted in favor of Defendants.
The other claims Relief denied Read by a model
This Court finds Ms. Sholanke failed to carry her burden and the BIA’s denial of Plaintiffs’ appeal was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law. Accordingly, judgment is granted in favor of Defendants.
Months pending 29.5 months from the application to the suit; 13.2 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
On April 12, 2017, the Director denied Ms. Sholanke’s Form I-130 petition based on the conclusion that the beneficiary’s prior marriage was fraudulent pursuant to INA § 204(c).
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Nigeria Read by a model
Plaintiff Abdulafeez Sholanke, a citizen of Nigeria, entered the United States on a nonimmigrant F-1 student visa on September 24, 2013.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
On March 7, 2016, Ms. Sholanke filed an Immediate Relative J-130 Petition and designated Mr. Sholanke as the beneficiary.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:18-cv-01929
Filed
August 22, 2018
Ended
March 25, 2020
Suit's filing to its end
581 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.

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.