Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Missouri

Farah v. Mayorkas

Eastern District of MissouriDecided January 15, 2025No. 4:24-cv-00728

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
On December 6, 2024, the USCIS issued a Notice of Denial of the Children’s Form I-730 Refugee/Asylee Relative Petitions.
Form or filing I-730 (refugee or asylee relative petition) Read by a model
In his Complaint, Plaintiff sought relief under the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) and the Mandamus Act to promptly adjudicate Plaintiff’s I-730 Follow-to-Join Petitions on behalf of the Children.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
In his Complaint, Plaintiff sought relief under the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) and the Mandamus Act to promptly adjudicate Plaintiff’s I-730 Follow-to-Join Petitions on behalf of the Children.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(B)(1) Mootness (ECF No. 15) is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Summary judgment Read by a model
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 5), Plaintiff’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 10), and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(B)(1) Mootness (ECF No. 15).
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 5), Plaintiff’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 10), and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(B)(1) Mootness (ECF No. 15).
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
Further, the Court holds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this lawsuit because all the requested relief has been provided and, therefore, the lawsuit is moot.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
Thus, Plaintiff’s claims based on the APA and Mandamus Act have been mooted and there remains no justiciable claim.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Thus, Plaintiff’s claims based on the APA and Mandamus Act have been mooted and there remains no justiciable claim.
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
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Further, the Court holds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this lawsuit because all the requested relief has been provided and, therefore, the lawsuit is moot.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 4:24-cv-00728
Filed
May 23, 2024
Ended
January 15, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
237 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
order 2025-01-15 dismisses for want of jurisdiction; 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 Eighth 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.