Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Minnesota

Awal v. United States Department of State

District of MinnesotaKatherine M. MenendezDecided December 4, 2024No. 0:24-cv-00382

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 February 8, 2023, Mr. Bashiir had a visa interview with the State Department.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
In her complaint, Plaintiff Ifrah Muhumed Awal alleges that Defendants1 have violated the Administrative Procedure Act by unreasonably delaying making a final ruling on her husband’s immigrant visa petition.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Ms. Awal seeks to compel Defendants to adjudicate Mr. Bashiir’s visa petition through a writ of mandamus, and declaratory and injunctive relief.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants bring their motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss Ms. Awal’s complaint for failure to state a claim.
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
Plaintiff’s unreasonable- delay claim under the APA and Mandamus Act in the First Claim for Relief is DISMISSED insofar as it is based on Defendants’ alleged use of CARRP. Otherwise, Defendants’ motion is DENIED.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Plaintiff’s unreasonable- delay claim under the APA and Mandamus Act in the First Claim for Relief is DISMISSED insofar as it is based on Defendants’ alleged use of CARRP. Otherwise, Defendants’ motion is DENIED.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Plaintiff’s unreasonable- delay claim under the APA and Mandamus Act in the First Claim for Relief is DISMISSED insofar as it is based on Defendants’ alleged use of CARRP. Otherwise, Defendants’ motion is DENIED.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiff’s due process claim in the Second Claim for Relief is DISMISSED. Plaintiff’s unreasonable- delay claim under the APA and Mandamus Act in the First Claim for Relief is DISMISSED insofar as it is based on Defendants’ alleged use of CARRP.
Months pending 56.1 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
To that end, Awal filed a visa application for Bashiir on April 2, 2020.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied; Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found Read by a model
The Court cannot provide that relief, regardless of the outcome of Plaintiff’s unreasonable-delay claims. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)
Nationality Somalia Read by a model
who is married to a Somali man named Ibraam Abdi Bashiir.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Ifrah Muhumed Awal is a United States citizen,2 who is married to a Somali man named Ibraam Abdi Bashiir.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 0:24-cv-00382
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 21), deciding the motion (ECF 8)
Filed
February 8, 2024
Ended
January 31, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
358 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 12 (dismissed: voluntarily)

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision, and the motion number is read from that entry's text. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

Supreme Court and Eighth 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.