Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Mugaidea v. United States Department of Homeland Security

District of ColumbiaJia M. CobbDecided April 11, 2025No. 1:24-cv-02836

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 Department of State Read by a model
Plaintiffs Fahmi Mohammed Ali Mugaidea and Amr Mohammed Ali Mugaidea brought this action against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Department of State, and their respective Secretaries.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiffs seek a writ of mandamus compelling Defendants to issue SE Special Immigrant Visas.
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
Plaintiffs seek a writ of mandamus compelling Defendants to issue SE Special Immigrant Visas.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court will GRANT Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF 10, and DISMISS the case WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as conceded.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On March 19, 2025, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court will GRANT Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF 10, and DISMISS the case WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court will GRANT Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF 10, and DISMISS the case WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as conceded.
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

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-02836
Filed
October 4, 2024
Ended
April 11, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
189 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 D.C. 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.