Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Ohio

Gulenga v. Field Office Director, US Citizenship and Immigration Services

Southern District of OhioDouglas R. ColeDecided January 23, 2024No. 1:23-cv-00213

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 USCIS Read by a model
Following the termination of the removal proceedings, USCIS denied Gulenga’s request for adjustment of status because USCIS concluded that she lacked a lawful immigration status when she filed her I-485 form.
Form or filing I-290B; I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
The Complaint claims USCIS’s decisions to deny her request for an adjustment of status via her filed Form I-485 and to affirm its decision upon reconsideration after she filed her Form I-290B violated:
What the suit asked for Not recorded Read by a model
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The Court thus DISMISSES Gulenga’s Complaint (Doc. 9) WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court grants the Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) and dismisses the case without prejudice.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 21)
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court grants the Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) and dismisses the case without prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The Court thus DISMISSES Gulenga’s Complaint (Doc. 9) WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
The Court thus DISMISSES Gulenga’s Complaint (Doc. 9) WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction.
Months pending 35.7 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
While those proceedings were still pending, relying on USCIS’s approval of her father’s petition, Gulenga filed a Form I-485 on February 1, 2021.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied Read by a model
This Court will follow suit and hold that subparagraph (B) applies to the decision at issue here.
Nationality Democratic Republic of Congo Read by a model
Plaintiff Gloria Gisanga Gulenga is a citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo currently living in this country.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-00213
Filed
April 19, 2023
Ended
January 23, 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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.