Passim

Mandamus decisions / Middle District of Tennessee

AL-Obaidi v. Blinken

Middle District of TennesseeWilliam L. Campbell, JrDecided October 2, 2024No. 3:24-cv-00419

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 April 26, 2023, a consular officer at the U.S. Embassy in Amman conducted Ms. Al-Obaidy’s visa interview.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
He contends his spouse’s immigrant visa application has been stalled in administrative processing since April 26, 2023,
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
he seeks a writ of mandamus compelling defendants to complete adjudication of his spouse’s immigrant visa.
Kind of order A magistrate judge's recommendation Read by a model
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants now move to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
This pro se immigration matter is before the court on defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
Disposition Magistrate judge's recommendation A magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The district judge decides whether to adopt it, so it is not counted as either side's win. Read by a model
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim (Docket No. 7) be GRANTED and the claims against Defendant be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Months pending 17.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On April 26, 2023, a consular officer at the U.S. Embassy in Amman conducted Ms. Al-Obaidy’s visa interview.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
The first two factors, whether the length of time for the agency to act is governed by a rule of reason as informed by any specific timetable established by Congress, weigh in defendants’ favor.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Granting Plaintiff the requested relief would only serve to improperly advance Ms. Al-Obaidy’s application ahead of others who are in the same situation.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability applied; No duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal Read by a model
Defendants argue the doctrine of consular non-reviewability bars the Court’s review of the complaint. The undersigned agrees.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:24-cv-00419
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 11)
Filed
April 9, 2024
Ended
October 21, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
195 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2024-10-21 for the defendants, ground not stated; 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.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

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.