Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Ohio

Yared v. Nepal

Northern District of OhioPatricia A GaughanDecided April 9, 2025No. 1:24-cv-02114

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
Here, Defendants’ consular officer refused Dib’s visa on July 23, 2024.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
The noncitizen fiancé(e) must appear before a consular officer and make and execute a nonimmigrant visa application.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Here, Yared asks this Court to compel Defendants to further adjudicate her fiancé’s refused visa application, but she points to no statute or regulation that requires that further adjudication.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For all the aforementioned reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is granted and this case is dismissed.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants now move to dismiss Yared’s Petition for Writ and Complaint for Injunctive Relief, alleging this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction or, in the alternative, Yared fails to state a claim.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants now move to dismiss Yared’s Petition for Writ and Complaint for Injunctive Relief, alleging this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction or, in the alternative, Yared fails to state a claim.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For all the aforementioned reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is granted and this case is dismissed.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For all the aforementioned reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is granted and this case is dismissed.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, these claims must be dismissed and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is granted as to Counts One and Two.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Because Yared has not identified a legally protected interest sufficient to support a due process claim, this claim must be dismissed.
Months pending 4.5 months from the application to the suit; 8.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
USCIS approved the petition in September 2023 and Dib appeared for an interview at the U.S. Embassy in Jordan on July 23, 2024.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablenot reached
  • 3. Human health and welfarenot reached
  • 4. Competing prioritiesnot reached
  • 5. Interests prejudicednot reached
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
This is perhaps unsurprising considering she has alleged less than a nine-month delay between Dib’s interview and present day—well short of what case law typically considers to be an unreasonable delay.
Threshold rulings No duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal Read by a model
this Court aligns itself more with the reasoning of Karimova and others in finding that no further action is legally required by Defendants after they have refused a visa.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-02114
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 12)
Filed
December 6, 2024
Ended
April 9, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
124 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.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision. 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.