Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Ohio

Dissanayake Mudiyanselage v. Edlow

Southern District of OhioSarah D. MorrisonDecided August 28, 2026No. 2:26-cv-00895

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 USCIS Read by a model
USCIS did no further processing of their applications by July 2026.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
When her rank-order became current that October, she filed her and her husband’s status-adjustment applications.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Second, they ask the Court to compel USCIS to adjudicate their applications under the Mandamus Act, arguing that the Agency has a nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate them (Count IV).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The Court finds that a preliminary injunction is warranted. Plaintiffs’ Motion is GRANTED.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
The Motion is now fully briefed2 and, for the reasons below, the Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 2)
Disposition Granted in the applicant's favor The principal motion was granted in full: summary judgment for either side, an injunction or TRO, a writ or order to act, fees. A motion to dismiss granted in full counts as Dismissed; a transfer is listed apart. Read by a model
The Court finds that a preliminary injunction is warranted. Plaintiffs’ Motion is GRANTED.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
Defendants are hereby ORDERED to process Plaintiffs’ DV applications without application of the Policy Memorandum.
The delay claim Relief ordered Read by a model
Defendants are further ORDERED to make a good-faith effort to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ DV applications before September 30, 2026.
The other claims Relief ordered Read by a model
Defendants are hereby ORDERED to process Plaintiffs’ DV applications without application of the Policy Memorandum.
Months pending 10.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Ms. Dissanayake Mudiyanselage learned of her selection in the DV-2026 lottery in May 2025. (Compl., ¶ 44.) When her rank-order became current that October, she filed her and her husband’s status-adjustment applications.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the applicant
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the applicant
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the applicant
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
Thus, Plaintiffs are likely to show that delaying adjudication of their DV applications until they lose their eligibility is unreasonable. These factors favor Plaintiffs.
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model
And § 1255(a) “does not unambiguously ‘specify’ for § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) purposes” that USCIS “maintains discretion” to pause all adjudications of status-adjustment applications.
Nationality Sri Lanka Read by a model
Spouses Sarala Nirmanee Wijerathne Dissanayake Mudiyanselage and Vidura Midelle Pathirajage are Sri Lankan nationals living in Blacklick, Ohio.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:26-cv-00895
Filed
July 24, 2026
Status
Pending as of the last docket check

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.