Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Michigan

King v. McAleenan

Eastern District of MichiganNancy G. EdmundsDecided June 22, 2020No. 2:19-cv-13454

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
On December 16, 2019, USCIS forwarded Plaintiff’s petition to BIA, where it is currently pending.
Form or filing I-130 (relative petition) Read by a model
In January 2018, Plaintiff filed an I-130 Petition for Alien Relative on behalf of his wife, Josephine Macfayden, a Nigerian national.
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
Plaintiff filed an action with this Court on November 22, 2019, claiming that defendants had failed to “promptly” forward Plaintiff’s I-130 petition to the BIA or approve the petition within a 45-day period pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.5(b).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and 12(b)(6), failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Therefore, Plaintiff’s claim under the Mandamus Act is dismissed as moot.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Therefore, Plaintiff’s claim under the Mandamus Act is dismissed as moot.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Therefore, Plaintiff’s claim under the Mandamus Act is dismissed as moot.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Thus, to the extent Plaintiff seeks judicial review of the denial of his I-130 petition, Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Months pending 22.2 months from the application to the suit; 23 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
On December 16, 2019, USCIS forwarded Plaintiff’s petition to BIA, where it is currently pending.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Therefore, Plaintiff’s claim under the Mandamus Act is dismissed as moot.
Nationality Nigeria Read by a model
Josephine Macfayden, a Nigerian national.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:19-cv-13454
Filed
November 21, 2019
Ended
June 22, 2020
Suit's filing to its end
214 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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.