Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Illinois

Bodo v. Cioppa

Northern District of IllinoisDecided August 18, 2023No. 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
USCIS reaffirmed its decisions on remand.
Form or filing I-130 (relative petition) Read by a model
Their amended complaint asserts that the BIA erred in denying Bodo’s I-130 petition.
What the suit asked for Not recorded Read by a model
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment [58] is granted. Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment [60] is denied.
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment [58] is granted. Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment [60] is denied.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
Plaintiffs and defendants now both move for summary judgment. [60]; [58].
Disposition Granted in the government's favor The principal motion was granted in full: summary judgment for either side, an injunction or TRO, a writ or order to act, fees. A motion to dismiss granted in full counts as Dismissed; a transfer is listed apart. Read by a model
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment [58] is granted.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment [58] is granted. Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment [60] is denied.
The other claims Relief denied Read by a model
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment [58] is granted. Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment [60] is denied. Enter final judgment. Civil case terminated.
Months pending 145.6 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
on July 1, 2011, Bodo filed a Form I-130 petition on behalf of her husband, Andreica
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
Second, plaintiffs have another adequate remedy available: the judicial review they are seeking in this case.
Nationality Romania Read by a model
Ovidiu Andreica, a Romanian citizen
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Plaintiffs Bernadette Bodo, a United States citizen, and Ovidiu Andreica, a Romanian citizen, married on April 1, 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, this one. 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. Cioppa August 12, 2019 Joan B. Gottschall Discovery or record order
Bodo v. CioppaThis decisionThe 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.