Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Indiana

Bhaidas v. Secretary US Department of Homeland Security

Northern District of IndianaDamon R LeichtyDecided October 22, 2025No. 3:25-cv-00242

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
The assertion that USCIS’s now-47-month delay in reviewing the I-130 constitutes an unreasonable delay isn’t frivolous, so the court has jurisdiction over this mandamus request.
Form or filing I-130 (relative petition); I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
Messrs. Bhaidas and Bhaidasna seek a writ of mandamus or alternatively relief under the APA for the government’s alleged inaction and for unreasonably delaying the adjudication of their I-130 and I-485 petitions.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
They also seek a writ of mandamus to compel the government to adjudicate their petitions.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, the court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the government’s motion to dismiss [14].
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
The government moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Accordingly, the court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the government’s motion to dismiss [14].
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
Considering all factors together, Mr. Bhaidas has plausibly alleged enough to proceed on his APA claim—the only one over which the court has jurisdiction.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Considering all factors together, Mr. Bhaidas has plausibly alleged enough to proceed on his APA claim—the only one over which the court has jurisdiction.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Considering all factors together, Mr. Bhaidas has plausibly alleged enough to proceed on his APA claim—the only one over which the court has jurisdiction.
Months pending 39.9 months from the application to the suit; 48.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On October 11, 2021, Mr. Bhaidas filed a Form I-130 Petition for Alien Relative with USCIS that named Mr. Bhaidasna as a beneficiary [id. ¶ 16].
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the applicant
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the applicant
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the applicant
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededfavors the government
Read by a model
the first, second, fourth, and fifth factors weigh to some degree in his favor
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing rejected; Line-jumping rejected Read by a model
Nor does the government explain why the mere existence of a rule must mean that the agency is following that rule—two separate questions, and at least the one is not answerable at this pleading stage.
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied; APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
When the statute says the court cannot review this discretionary petition, that is exactly what it means—the court lacks jurisdiction. 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(2)(B);
Nationality India Read by a model
his son Jash Bhaidasna is an Indian citizen
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
allows a United States citizen to file a Form I-130 petition for classification of a child as an immediate relative for immigration purposes.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:25-cv-00242
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 20), deciding the motion (ECF 14)
Filed
March 20, 2025
Ended
December 18, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
273 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
voluntary dismissal 2025-12-16

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, and the motion number is read from that entry's text. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

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.