Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Ohio
Andrews v. United State Department of State
Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener
2,914 written decisions from 2,661 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 1:24 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 | Not recorded Read by a model |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
DS-260 (immigrant visa)
Read by a model
Therein, Plaintiff requests the Court order Defendants to issue an official written decision on the immigrant visa application of her husband, Mo’ath Mahmoud Suleiman Alzubi within thirty days. |
| What the suit asked for |
Decide the application
Read by a model
Therein, Plaintiff requests the Court order Defendants to issue an official written decision on the immigrant visa application of her husband, Mo’ath Mahmoud Suleiman Alzubi within thirty days. |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Expedite Issuance of Official Final Decision (Doc. 14) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. |
| Motion decided | None Read by a model |
| Whose motion |
The plaintiff's motion
Read by a model
Plaintiff Misty Ann Andrews’s Motion to Expedite Issuance of Official Final Decision. |
| Disposition |
Denied in the government's favor
The principal motion was denied in full: a motion to dismiss denied so the case goes on, or relief denied on the merits.
Read by a model
14) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. |
| Prevailing party |
Government
Read by a model
14) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. |
| The delay claim |
Relief denied
Read by a model
it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Expedite Issuance of Official Final Decision (Doc. 14) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. |
| Months pending | Not stated Read by a model |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings | None Read by a model |
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, this one. How decisions are grouped into cases.
| Decision | Decided | Judge | Disposition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Andrews v. United State Department of State | May 16, 2025 | James G. Carr | Dismissed |
| Andrews v. United State Department of StateThis decisionThe 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.
-
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55
Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Barrios Garcia v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 25 F.4th 430
Sixth Circuit, February 10, 2022. Courts may review and compel unreasonably delayed U-visa waitlist placement and bona fide determinations under TRAC, though not discretionary pre-waitlist work authorization, disagreeing in part with the Fourth Circuit's Gonzalez.
ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. No verified adverse treatment has been found so far. All 2 precedential decisions citing this case have been reviewed as of 2026-10-29.