Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Ohio

Igal v. the U.S. Consulate General in Johannesburg

Southern District of OhioKimberly A. JolsonDecided June 7, 2024No. 2:23-cv-04160

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
Over a year later, in January 2023, the United States Consulate General in Johannesburg interviewed Plaintiff’s husband.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Those facts are strikingly similar to Plaintiff’s case, whose husband’s immediate relative visa application also sits in administrative processing.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
In her Complaint, Plaintiff requests an order compelling Defendants to complete processing and adjudication of her husband’s visa application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 15) 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
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 15) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 15) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
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 remaining claims may proceed for further development.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Plaintiff’s remaining claims may proceed for further development.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Plaintiff’s remaining claims may proceed for further development.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiff’s due process claims are DISMISSED.
Months pending 16.7 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Over a year later, in January 2023, the United States Consulate General in Johannesburg interviewed Plaintiff’s husband.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping rejected Read by a model
Even so, usual administrative delay does not absolve Defendants of their duty to adjudicate visas within a reasonable time.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Mootness argument rejected; Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found Read by a model
Similarly, the Court rejects Defendants’ argument that the doctrine of consular nonreviewability bars Plaintiff’s claims.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Those facts are strikingly similar to Plaintiff’s case, whose husband’s immediate relative visa application also sits in administrative processing.

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 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
Igal v. the U.S. Consulate General in JohannesburgThis decision June 7, 2024 Kimberly A. Jolson Dismissed in part; some claims go on
Igal v. the U.S. Consulate General in JohannesburgThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted June 7, 2024 Kimberly A. Jolson Dismissed in part; some claims go on

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:23-cv-04160
Filed
November 29, 2023
Ended
October 24, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
330 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
stipulated dismissal 2024-10-24; 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.