Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Michigan

Stone v. US Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Assistant Secretary

Eastern District of MichiganBrandy R. McMillionDecided July 26, 2024No. 2:23-cv-12181

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
This factor strongly supports Defendants here because the State Department processes visa applications on a “first-in, first-out” basis.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
If approved, USCIS forwards the petition to the State Department’s National Visa Center (“NVC”), and the beneficiary then fills out a visa application, also called a DS-260.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order requiring Defendants to process his wife’s visa application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9) and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Complaint for Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 1).
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9) filed by Defendants Antony Blinken, Rena Bitter, and Marc D. Dillard (“Defendants”).
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 (ECF No. 9) and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Complaint for Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 1).
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9) and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Complaint for Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 1).
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9) and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Complaint for Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 1).
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Lastly, the Court dismisses his due process claims because he does not have a fundamental liberty interest in having his spouse admitted to the country.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededfavors the government
Read by a model
This factor strongly supports Defendants here because the State Department processes visa applications on a “first-in, first-out” basis.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
This factor strongly supports Defendants here because the State Department processes visa applications on a “first-in, first-out” basis.
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
Additionally, his request for mandamus relief is dismissed because he has an adequate remedy at law under the Administrative Procedure Act.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Plaintiff is a United States citizen from Brighton, Michigan. ECF No. 1, PageID.2, ¶ 1. His wife, Janeann Angara Stone, and their young son, KPS (a U.S. citizen), live in Kenya.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:23-cv-12181
Filed
August 25, 2023
Ended
July 26, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
336 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2024-07-26 for the defendants, ground not stated; idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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.