Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Michigan

B.L.R v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Eastern District of MichiganBrandy R. McMillionDecided January 2, 2025No. 2:23-cv-13230

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
And even though USCIS has the “discretion to set forth, abide by, and eliminate the BFD process,” compelling the USCIS to adjudicate a BFD is within the Court’s power if an unreasonable delay has occurred.
Form or filing I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
The U-VISA application is a two-step process.
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
While true, Plaintiffs argue that they are seeking relief at the first step—making the bona fide determination.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 30)
Motion decided Other motion to dismiss Read by a model
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court’s Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 28) is STRICKEN and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 23) is hereby DENIED.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (ECF No. 30).
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
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (ECF No. 30).
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (ECF No. 30).
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court’s Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 28) is STRICKEN and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 23) is hereby DENIED.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
U visa claims Bona fide determination: goes on Read by a model
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court’s Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 28) is STRICKEN and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 23) is hereby DENIED.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:23-cv-13230
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 36)
Filed
December 19, 2023
Ended
January 15, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
378 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
stipulated dismissal 2026-01-15; idb disp 12 (dismissed: voluntarily)

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 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.