Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Michigan

Mohafel v.US Secretary of State

Eastern District of MichiganRobert J. WhiteDecided November 25, 2025No. 2:25-cv-11061

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
They seek to compel the Secretary of State and other federal officials to direct a consular officer to further adjudicate Galabi’s immigration visa application.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
The consular officer refused Galabi’s immigration visa application after the interview.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
They seek to compel the Secretary of State and other federal officials to direct a consular officer to further adjudicate Galabi’s immigration visa application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
IT IS ORDERED that the government’s motion to dismiss the complaint (ECF No. 5) is granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
The government now moves to dismiss the complaint on the ground that, among other things, Mohafel and Galabi lack Article III standing to maintain this action.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is the government’s motion to dismiss the complaint.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
IT IS ORDERED that the government’s motion to dismiss the complaint (ECF No. 5) is granted.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
IT IS ORDERED that the government’s motion to dismiss the complaint (ECF No. 5) is granted.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
IT IS ORDERED that the government’s motion to dismiss the complaint (ECF No. 5) is granted.
Months pending 14.9 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Galabi attended a consular interview at the United States Embassy in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia on August 27, 2024.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings No duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal Read by a model
Whether the consular officer or some other State Department official is authorized to later “reconsider this refusal is immaterial, when no statute, regulation, or other source imposes a duty to reconsider it.”
Nationality Syria Read by a model
His mother, Galabi, is a displaced Syrian national currently living in Malaysia.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Mohafel is a United States citizen. (ECF No. 1, PageID.4, ¶ 11). His mother, Galabi, is a displaced Syrian national currently living in Malaysia.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:25-cv-11061
Filed
April 14, 2025
Ended
November 25, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
225 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2025-11-25 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.

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.