Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Minnesota

Rennie v. Petrovich

District of MinnesotaKatherine M. MenendezDecided June 16, 2025No. 0:24-cv-04125

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, the State Department has taken action on Jackson’s visa application.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Jackson successfully sought to acquire a visa within a year of the availability date because he has already submitted Form DS-260 and attended his immigrant visa interview.
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
Ms. R alleges that Defendants have an obligation to apply the provisions of the CSPA to the visa petition for Jackson.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 5) 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 bring their motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 5) is DENIED.
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 reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 5) is DENIED.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 5) is DENIED.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
In sum, the Court finds the arguments for dismissal of an unreasonable delay claim presented in the Defendants’ motion to dismiss to be unpersuasive, and therefore denies that motion.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected Read by a model
Likewise, the Court disagrees with Defendants’ assertion that the doctrine of consular non-reviewability bars any unreasonable delay claim in this case.
I-130 category Family preference Read by a model
On October 1, 2024, the Embassy in Monrovia notified Jackson that his visa category had been switched from F2A to F1, adult child of U.S. citizen.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 0:24-cv-04125
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 16), deciding the motion (ECF 5)
Filed
November 5, 2024
Ended
August 6, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
639 days
How it ended
Ended, outcome not recorded
From the record
terminated; no disposition recorded

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why.

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 Eighth 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.