Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Ohio

Riaz v. Secretary, Department of State

Southern District of OhioMatthew W. McFarlandDecided August 20, 2025No. 1:24-cv-00598

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,917 written decisions from 2,664 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 7:07 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 Department of State Read by a model
To return to the U.S., Plaintiff again filed for an H-1B visa through the U.S. embassy in Pakistan.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
To return to the U.S., Plaintiff again filed for an H-1B visa through the U.S. embassy in Pakistan.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Plaintiff here is not asking the Court to second guess his Section 221(g) denial, but instead alleging that Defendants have unduly delayed making a final decision on his visa application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons below, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6) is GRANTED.
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. 6).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Based on the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6) is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Based on the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6) is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Based on the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6) is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED.
Months pending 4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Here, Plaintiff's alleged undue delay has not even spanned four months.
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
This timeframe falls dramatically short compared to what courts consider to be unreasonable. Thus, these factors weigh against Plaintiff.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Requiring Defendants to redirect resources to review Plaintiff's application could still harm other applicants.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found Read by a model
Thus, Baaghil is not controlling and consular nonreviewability is inapplicable.
Nationality Pakistan Read by a model
Plaintiff Uzair Riaz is a citizen of Pakistan

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-00598
Filed
October 21, 2024
Ended
August 20, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
303 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.

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.