Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Virginia

Deussom v. Noem

Eastern District of VirginiaMichael S NachmanoffDecided February 2, 2026No. 1:25-cv-00404

Read the decision Original on CourtListener

2,914 written decisions from 2,661 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 1:24 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 1,606 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,371 (85%), measured November 3, 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 Defendants asked for the stay to “allow for adequate time for USCIS to take further action on the application.”
Form or filing	I-589 (asylum) Read by a model Plaintiff asks this Court to compel Defendants to adjudicate his application for asylum.
What the suit asked for	Decide the asylum application Read by a model Plaintiff asks this Court to compel Defendants to adjudicate his application for asylum.
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model For that reason, and the reasons that follow, this Court will GRANT Defendants’ motion to dismiss and DISMISS Plaintiff’s complaint.
Motion decided	Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction.
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction.
Disposition	Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model Plaintiff’s case must be dismissed because it is mooted by Defendants’ adjudication of his asylum application.
Prevailing party	Neither side Read by a model Plaintiff’s case must be dismissed because it is mooted by Defendants’ adjudication of his asylum application.
The delay claim	Moot: the agency acted Read by a model Plaintiff’s case must be dismissed because it is mooted by Defendants’ adjudication of his asylum application.
Months pending	66.7 months from the application to the suit; 70 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model Plaintiff does not refute that Defendants approved his application for asylum on June 16, 2025.
TRAC factors	The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings	Held moot Read by a model Without any representation from the Plaintiff contradicting these facts, the litigation is moot and the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to proceed any further.
Nationality	Cameroon Read by a model Plaintiff is a citizen of Cameroon.

How the case ended

Docket: No. 1:25-cv-00404
Filed: March 5, 2025
Ended: February 2, 2026
Suit's filing to its end: 334 days
How it ended: Ended once the agency acted
From the record: idb disp 3 (dismissed: lack of jurisdiction)

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 Fourth 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 3, 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
Gonzalez v. Cuccinelli, 985 F.3d 357

Fourth Circuit, January 14, 2021. Courts may review delay in placing U-visa petitioners on the waitlist under the TRAC factors and should not dismiss such claims at the pleading stage, but lack jurisdiction over delay in pre-waitlist work-permit requests, a point on which the Sixth Circuit disagrees.

ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Rejected in the Sixth Circuit by Barrios Garcia v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 25 F.4th 430 (2022).
Lovo v. Miller, 107 F.4th 199

Fourth Circuit, July 3, 2024. The 'decision or action' language of § 1182(a)(9)(B)(v), which the court treated as coextensive with § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), does not reach USCIS inaction, so a district court may hear a claim that USCIS unreasonably delayed a provisional unlawful-presence waiver.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 5 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-10-29; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.