Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Michigan

Alghooneh v. US Department of State

Eastern District of MichiganLaurie J. MichelsonDecided November 4, 2025No. 2:25-cv-10878

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,948 written decisions from 2,691 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided November 10, 2026. Updated November 11, 2026 at 1:21 p.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 1,632 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,398 (86%), measured November 11, 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 approved application was processed by the State Department, and on March 19, 2024, Plaintiffs completed their visa interviews at the U.S. Consulate in Montreal.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
So in 2020, Alghooneh applied for an employment-based immigrant visa, with his wife and their minor son as derivative beneficiaries.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Put another way, the basis for this suit is the adjudication of Plaintiffs’ visa petitions (and Defendants’ allegedly unreasonable delays therein).
Kind of order A transfer order Read by a model
The Court will exercise its discretion to transfer the case rather than dismiss it.
Motion decided Other motion to dismiss; Transfer Read by a model
the Court GRANTS IN PART Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(3) motion to dismiss (ECF No. 5) and TRANSFERS this case to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) and 12(b)(6).
Disposition Transferred to another court An order moving the case to another court. It decides where the suit is heard, not who wins, so it is not counted as either side's win. Read by a model
The Court will exercise its discretion to transfer the case rather than dismiss it.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
The Court will exercise its discretion to transfer the case rather than dismiss it.
The delay claim Not decided here Read by a model
For the reasons below, and without expressing any view on the merits of Plaintiffs’ complaint or Defendants’ arguments under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court will grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(3).
The other claims Not decided here Read by a model
For the reasons below, and without expressing any view on the merits of Plaintiffs’ complaint or Defendants’ arguments under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court will grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(3).
Months pending 56.9 months from the application to the suit; 64.1 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
So in 2020, Alghooneh applied for an employment-based immigrant visa, with his wife and their minor son as derivative beneficiaries.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Canada Read by a model
Mansoor Alghooneh, Masoumeh Esfandiari, and their minor son L.A.E.A. are citizens and residents of Canada.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:25-cv-10878
Filed
March 28, 2025
Ended
November 4, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
221 days
How it ended
Transferred
From the record
idb disp 0 (transferred to another district)

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 11, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.