Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Michigan
Panicheva v. DHS/ICE
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 |
ICE
Read by a model
As to DHS, DHS’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) policy states that ICE officers “generally confiscate any foreign and domestic government- issued documents” upon the initiation of removal proceedings against a noncitizen. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
I-589 (asylum)
Read by a model
Plaintiffs request that the Court withdraw the Immigration Court’s decision regarding their removal, restore their original I-589 forms, and to restore their original “judicial deadlines” to thereby grant them asylum. |
| What the suit asked for |
Some other action
Read by a model
They ask the Court to require MDAG to issue their IDs and DHS to return their passports. |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS [#19, #22] |
| Motion decided |
Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
Read by a model
Accordingly, for the reasons described above, DHS’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 19] and MDAG’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 22] are GRANTED. |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
DHS and MDAG filed Motions to Dismiss. |
| Disposition |
Dismissed
The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness.
Read by a model
Accordingly, for the reasons described above, DHS’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 19] and MDAG’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 22] are GRANTED. |
| Prevailing party |
Government
Read by a model
Accordingly, for the reasons described above, DHS’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 19] and MDAG’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 22] are GRANTED. |
| The other claims |
Dismissed
Read by a model
Accordingly, for the reasons described above, DHS’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 19] and MDAG’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 22] are GRANTED. |
| Months pending |
79.5 months from the application to the agency's action
Read by a model
In 2022, the Immigration Court denied Plaintiffs’ applications for asylum, denied their applications for withholding of removal, and denied Plaintiffs’ applications for protection under the Torture Convention. |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings | None Read by a model |
| Nationality |
Russia
Read by a model
Plaintiff Panicheva is a Russian-born Russian citizen, and Plaintiff Bittir is a Ukrainian-born Russian citizen. |
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 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 14, 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 2026-11-13.