Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Georgia

Segovia v. Garland

Northern District of GeorgiaDecided March 21, 2024No. 1:23-cv-01478

Read the decisionOriginal 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
The Complaint, which the Court takes as true at this stage, alleges that USCIS has not in any way acted on Segovia’s Waiver Application.
Form or filing I-601A (provisional waiver) Read by a model
Plaintiffs ask the Court to compel Defendants to adjudicate Segovia’s Waiver Application.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs ask the Court to compel Defendants to adjudicate Segovia’s Waiver Application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 6] is DENIED.
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 for lack of jurisdiction under Federal Rule 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under Federal Rule 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule 12(b)(6).
Disposition Denied in the applicant's favor The principal motion was denied in full: a motion to dismiss denied so the case goes on, or relief denied on the merits. Read by a model
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 6] is DENIED.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 6] is DENIED.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 6] is DENIED.
Months pending 18.1 months from the application to the suit; 29.3 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
on October 11, 2021, Plaintiff Segovia submitted his I-601A provisional unlawful presence waiver application (“Waiver Application”).
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonnot reached
  • 2. Congressional timetablenot reached
  • 3. Human health and welfarenot reached
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the applicant
  • 5. Interests prejudicednot reached
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
But, at this point, the Court cannot rely on these assertions to find as a matter of law that Plaintiffs fail to state a claim.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping rejected Read by a model
But, at this point, the Court cannot rely on these assertions to find as a matter of law that Plaintiffs fail to state a claim.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality El Salvador Read by a model
Segovia is a native and citizen of El Salvador.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-01478
Filed
April 5, 2023
Ended
April 29, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
390 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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.