Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Georgia

Tinoco v. Mayorkas

Northern District of GeorgiaMichael Lawrence BrownDecided August 13, 2021No. 1:20-cv-04787

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
Because USCIS must adjudicate U-Visa petitions, it follows that they must do so within a reasonable amount of time.
Form or filing I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
The Court notes both Plaintiff’s claims deal with adjudication of his U-Visa petition, not his employment authorization documents.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
On November 24, 2020, Plaintiff sued Defendants for declaratory, mandamus, and injunctive relief seeking an order compelling USCIS to determine his eligibility for placement on the formal U-Visa waitlist so that he may pursue employment authorization.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 10).
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (b)(6).
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
Plaintiff’s complaint alleges enough facts to state a claim for relief.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Plaintiff’s complaint alleges enough facts to state a claim for relief.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Plaintiff’s complaint alleges enough facts to state a claim for relief.
Months pending 33.7 months from the application to the suit; 42.3 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On February 2, 2018, Plaintiff filed his
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected; APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds the USCIS has a non-discretionary duty to adjudicate U Visas within a reasonable time. The Court thus has jurisdiction to review Plaintiff’s claims that the USCIS failed to adjudicate Plaintiff’s U Visa “within a reasonable time.”
U visa claims Work permit: dismissed; Waiting list: goes on Read by a model
To the extent Plaintiff asserts a claim regarding employment authorization, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss as to that claim because the Court lacks jurisdiction.
Nationality Mexico Read by a model
Plaintiff is a native and citizen of Mexico

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:20-cv-04787
Filed
November 24, 2020
Ended
August 30, 2021
Suit's filing to its end
279 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
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.

Supreme Court and Eleventh 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.