Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Ohio

Awada v. Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State

Northern District of OhioJames R. Knepp IIDecided August 14, 2025No. 3:24-cv-01803

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
The Government presents a declaration stating that the consular officer “refused” the visa application under INA § 221(g), 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g), “as the officer determined that Ms. Taleb failed to demonstrate her eligibility for the visa sought.”
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Taleb then filed an Application for Immigrant Visa with the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Plaintiffs bring this action to “compel Defendants and those acting under them to immediately and forthwith take all appropriate action to issue a decision on Plaintiff, Ms. Esraa Taleb’s, Immigrant Visa application.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Defendants’ Motion.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
A motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) challenges a court’s subject matter jurisdiction.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Currently pending in this writ of mandamus case is Defendants’1 Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 7).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, good cause appearing, it is ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 7) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, good cause appearing, it is ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 7) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
As such, the Court finds Plaintiffs lack standing and the Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims under the APA and Mandamus Act.
Months pending 26.3 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Taleb appeared for a visa interview at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut on June 5, 2023.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings No duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal Read by a model
The problem with Plaintiffs’ argument that Defendants have an ongoing duty to act here is that they do not point to any law or regulation requiring Defendants to complete the cited “administrative processing”, reconsider a refusal, or render any further determination.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Plaintiff Dr. Hassan Awada is a United States citizen. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 9). In October 2020, he filed a Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, on behalf of his wife, Plaintiff Esraa Taleb.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:24-cv-01803
Filed
October 16, 2024
Ended
August 14, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
302 days
How it ended
Ended, outcome not recorded
From the record
terminated; no disposition recorded

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.