Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Pennsylvania

SAAVEDRA ESTRADE v. MAYORKAS

Eastern District of PennsylvaniaDecided November 21, 2023No. 2:23-cv-02110

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
He also sent in his I-601A Application for a Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver to USCIS, which was received on November 30, 2021.
Form or filing I-601A (provisional waiver) Read by a model
He also sent in his I-601A Application for a Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver to USCIS, which was received on November 30, 2021.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
The Plaintiffs ask for an order from this Court requiring that the Defendants “comply with their duties under 8 C.F.R. § 212.7 (3) and issue a decision on Saavedra Estrada’s application for a provisional unlawful presence waiver.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For these reasons, Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss will be denied.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
The standards for determining Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss—for lack of jurisdiction and, in the alternative, for failure to state a claim—are set forth below.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants have filed a Motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Disposition Government's motion denied; the case goes on The government's motion (to dismiss, or for summary judgment) was denied, so the case goes on. Counted as the applicant's ruling; a later decision in the case can still go either way. Read by a model
For these reasons, Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss will be denied.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
For these reasons, Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss will be denied.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
For these reasons, Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss will be denied.
Months pending 23.7 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
He also sent in his I-601A Application for a Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver to USCIS, which was received on November 30, 2021.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Guatemala Read by a model
Saavedra Estrada, who is a Guatemalan national, entered the United States in 1997 when he was 14 years old.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:23-cv-02110
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 12)
Filed
June 1, 2023
Ended
December 6, 2023
Suit's filing to its end
188 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
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.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

Supreme Court and Third 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.