Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Illinois

Bodo v. Cioppa

Northern District of IllinoisJoan B. GottschallDecided August 12, 2019No. 1:17-cv-09254

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
The USCIS found Andreica and Bodo did not enter the marriage in good faith and denied the I-130 petition.
Form or filing I-130 (relative petition); I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
Later that year, they simultaneously filed a Form I-130 petition asking the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (“USCIS”) to recognize the relationship and a Form I-485 application to adjust Andreica’s status to lawful permanent resident.
What the suit asked for Not recorded Read by a model
Kind of order A discovery or record order Read by a model
For the reasons stated and consistent with this opinion, plaintiffs’ motion to take limited discovery and supplement the record is granted in part and denied in part.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Bodo and Andreica move to supplement the administrative record and to take limited discovery.
Disposition Discovery or record order An order on discovery or the administrative record. It decides no claim, so it is not counted as either side's win. Read by a model
For the reasons stated and consistent with this opinion, plaintiffs’ motion to take limited discovery and supplement the record is granted in part and denied in part.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
For the reasons stated and consistent with this opinion, plaintiffs’ motion to take limited discovery and supplement the record is granted in part and denied in part.
The other claims Not decided here Read by a model
For the reasons stated and consistent with this opinion, plaintiffs’ motion to take limited discovery and supplement the record is granted in part and denied in part.
Months pending 77.3 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
The BIA affirmed the Director’s decision on November 22, 2017.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Bernadette Bodo (“Bodo”), who is a United States citizen, married Ovidiu Andreica (“Andreica”), in 2011.

Other orders in this case

The group holds 3 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
Bodo v. Cioppa November 9, 2018 Joan B. Gottschall Government's motion denied; the case goes on
Bodo v. CioppaThis decision August 12, 2019 Joan B. Gottschall Discovery or record order
Bodo v. CioppaThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted August 18, 2023 Granted in the government's favor

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:17-cv-09254
Filed
December 22, 2017
Ended
August 18, 2023
Suit's filing to its end
2,065 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. Other suits in this court.

Supreme Court and Seventh 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.