Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Ohio

Andrews v. United State Department of State

Northern District of OhioJames G. CarrDecided May 16, 2025No. 3:24-cv-01675

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
She seeks to compel the State Department and its officials to cause its Consular Officials in Amman, Jordan, to act upon her husband’s pending visa application. (Doc. 1).
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
I take judicial notice that according to the Department of State’s, Consular Electronic Application Checker, the consular officer denied Mr. Alzubi’s immigrant visa application.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
She seeks to compel the State Department and its officials to cause its Consular Officials in Amman, Jordan, to act upon her husband’s pending visa application. (Doc. 1).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 5) be, and the same hereby is, granted;
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Defendants assert this case should be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) (lack of subject matter jurisdiction) and 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Pending is the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 5).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) be, and the same hereby is, dismissed with prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 5) be, and the same hereby is, granted;
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Therefore, I join my colleague Judge Gaughan and find this Court does not have jurisdiction to further adjudicate the issues presented in this case.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) be, and the same hereby is, dismissed with prejudice.
Months pending 14.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Mr. Alzubi was interviewed at the U.S. Embassy on or about March 4, 2024. (Id.).
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; No duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal Read by a model
I adopt the reasoning of Judge Rice in his Omar decision. In examining the Plaintiffs’ claims under the APA, he rejected blanket applicability of the doctrine of consular nonreviewability to divest federal courts of jurisdiction.
Nationality Jordan Read by a model
Plaintiff is an American citizen and wife of Mo’ath Mahmoud Suleiman, a Jordanian national.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Plaintiff is an American citizen and wife of Mo’ath Mahmoud Suleiman, a Jordanian national.

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
Andrews v. United State Department of StateThis decision May 16, 2025 James G. Carr Dismissed
Andrews v. United State Department of StateThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted October 3, 2025 James R. Knepp II Denied in the government's favor

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:24-cv-01675
Filed
September 30, 2024
Ended
May 16, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
228 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.