Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Ohio

Faadumo Hasan Aaden v. Brian Heath

Southern District of OhioAlgenon L. MarbleyDecided May 18, 2026No. 2:25-cv-01293

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 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Faadumo Hasan Aaden’s suit against Defendants Brian Heath, the Consul General of the U.S. Consulate in Frankfurt; Alan Meltzer, the Charge d’Affaires of the U.S. Embassy in Germany; and Marco Rubio, the U.S. Secretary of State.
Form or filing	I-130 (relative petition) Read by a model Aaden, a United States citizen, seeks a writ of mandamus and injunctive relief against the Defendants to take action on her husband’s I-130 visa application.
What the suit asked for	Decide the application Read by a model Aaden, a United States citizen, seeks a writ of mandamus and injunctive relief against the Defendants to take action on her husband’s I-130 visa application.
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
Motion decided	None Read by a model
Whose motion	The court on its own Read by a model To date, Plaintiff has failed to submit a status report as ordered. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
Disposition	Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
Prevailing party	Government Read by a model Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
The delay claim	Dismissed Read by a model Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
Months pending	Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors	The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings	None Read by a model
Nationality	Somalia Read by a model Her husband is Somali.
I-130 category	Immediate relative Read by a model Aaden, a United States citizen, seeks a writ of mandamus and injunctive relief against the Defendants to take action on her husband’s I-130 visa application.

How the case ended

Docket: No. 2:25-cv-01293
Filed: November 6, 2025
Ended: May 18, 2026
Suit's filing to its end: 193 days
How it ended: Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record: idb disp 2 (dismissed: want of prosecution)

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.

Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. 667

Supreme Court, June 26, 2018. Mandel's facially-legitimate-and-bona-fide standard governs constitutional challenges to entry restrictions, and a citation to a valid statutory ground ordinarily satisfies it.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Department of State v. Muñoz, 602 U.S. 899

Supreme Court, June 21, 2024. A U.S. citizen has no fundamental liberty interest in a noncitizen spouse's admission, so marriage alone entitles the citizen neither to Mandel review of the consular refusal nor to an explanation beyond the statutory citation.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753

Supreme Court, June 29, 1972. When a visa refusal burdens a U.S. citizen's own constitutional rights, courts ask only whether the Executive gave a facially legitimate and bona fide reason and do not look behind it.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55

Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Baaghil v. Miller, 1 F.4th 427

Sixth Circuit, June 14, 2021. Visa denials stood where the consulate gave a facially legitimate and bona fide reason, and a citizen's asserted liberty interest in a relative's admission adds no further process.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 3 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-10; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
Barrios Garcia v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 25 F.4th 430

Sixth Circuit, February 10, 2022. Courts may review and compel unreasonably delayed U-visa waitlist placement and bona fide determinations under TRAC, though not discretionary pre-waitlist work authorization, disagreeing in part with the Fourth Circuit's Gonzalez.

ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. No verified adverse treatment has been found so far. All 2 precedential decisions citing this case have been reviewed as of 2026-11-13.