Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Ohio

Akhter v. Blinken

Southern District of OhioAlgenon L. MarbleyDecided March 19, 2024No. 2:23-cv-01374

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
And as a result, in the Government’s view, the Embassy’s failure to schedule an interview appointment for Plaintiff Hashmi is judicially unreviewable.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
The NVC completed processing of Plaintiff Hashmi’s DS-260 Application Form on October 5, 2020, and designated Plaintiff Hashmi as “documentarily qualified.”
What the suit asked for Schedule an interview Read by a model
They request that this Court compel Defendants to schedule Plaintiff Hashmi’s visa interview so that his visa application process can be, at long last, completed.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons that follow, Defendants’ Motion is DENIED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the case with prejudice in June 2023, arguing that this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims and that Plaintiffs have otherwise failed to state a claim.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
This matter is before this Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, With Prejudice.
Disposition Government's motion denied; the case goes on The government's motion (to dismiss, or for summary judgment) was denied, so the case goes on. Counted as the applicant's ruling; a later decision in the case can still go either way. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds that Plaintiffs have stated a claim of unreasonable delay under the APA and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is hereby DENIED.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds that Plaintiffs have stated a claim of unreasonable delay under the APA and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is hereby DENIED.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
this Court finds that Plaintiffs have stated a claim of unreasonable delay under the APA and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is hereby DENIED.
Months pending 42 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
three and a half years after Plaintiff Hashmi became “documentarily qualified.”
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonnot reached
  • 2. Congressional timetableneutral
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the applicant
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
The second and sixth TRAC factors are not relevant and undisputedly neutral, respectively.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing rejected; Line-jumping rejected Read by a model
the Sixth Circuit explained that “discovery is critical to understanding whether the [visa] process is a systematic line,” as Defendants contend. Barrios Garcia, 25 F.4th at 453. The same is true here.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Pakistan Read by a model
Plaintiff Shahzad Sauid Hashmi, a citizen and resident of Pakistan.
I-130 category Family preference Read by a model
As is relevant here, unmarried adult children of U.S. citizens my seek a “familypreference” visa.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:23-cv-01374
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 12), deciding the motion (ECF 4)
Filed
April 20, 2023
Ended
April 9, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
355 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
stipulated dismissal 2024-04-09; idb disp 12 (dismissed: voluntarily)

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, and the motion number is read from that entry's text. 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.