Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Ohio

Gonzalez v. Deputy Chief of Mission, U.S. Embassy in Saudi Arabia

Southern District of OhioMatthew W. McFarlandDecided June 5, 2024No. 1:23-cv-00547

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,914 written decisions from 2,661 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 1:24 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 1,606 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,371 (85%), measured November 3, 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 has a nondiscretionary duty to act on Plaintiff's fiancé’s visa application within a reasonable time.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
In April 2023, the U.S. Embassy in Saudi Arabia interviewed Plaintiff's fiancé as a part of the subsequent processing for his visa application.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
The Court next considers Plaintiff's claim for mandamus relief, wherein Plaintiff requests that this Court compel Defendants to adjudicate Plaintiff's fiancé’s visa application because they have failed to do so within a reasonable time.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. 9)
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff's claims under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Based on the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9) is GRANTED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Thus, Plaintiff's Fifth Amendment due process claim must also be dismissed.
Months pending 4.5 months from the application to the suit; 13.7 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
In April 2023, the U.S. Embassy in Saudi Arabia interviewed Plaintiff's fiancé as a part of the subsequent processing for his visa application.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfareneutral
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedneutral
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
Thus, the first and second TRAC factors favor Defendants.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Plaintiff has not alleged any facts suggesting that the first-in, first-out rule is not being applied to her fiancé’s application.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found Read by a model
In turn, because Plaintiff's fiancé has yet to receive a final adjudication on his application, the consular nonreviewability doctrine does not apply.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-00547
Filed
August 31, 2023
Ended
June 5, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
279 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 3 (dismissed: lack of jurisdiction)

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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.