Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Indiana

CAO v. GARLAND

Southern District of IndianaJames Patrick HanlonDecided April 23, 2021

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 Not recorded Read by a model
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
On May 6, 2019, Plaintiff—still in the United States—filed a Form I-485 "Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status" ("Application").
What the suit asked for Not recorded Read by a model
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Because Defendants have moved for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1), the Court accepts the facts in the complaint as true.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
This case is therefore moot, so it must be dismissed for lack of subject- matter jurisdiction.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
This case is therefore moot, so it must be dismissed for lack of subject- matter jurisdiction.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
This case is therefore moot, so it must be dismissed for lack of subject- matter jurisdiction.
Months pending Not stated at filing The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
On May 6, 2019, Plaintiff—still in the United States—filed a Form I-485 "Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status" ("Application").
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied; Held moot Read by a model
and it cannot be challenged in this court, Subhan v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 591, 594 (7th Cir. 2004) ("When a request for adjustment of status is denied there is no judicial review because the denial is one of the discretionary orders expressly made nonreviewable by § 1252(a)(2)(B).").

How the case ended

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

Supreme Court and Seventh 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.