Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Illinois

Camarena v. Cuccinelli

Northern District of IllinoisJohn Z. LeeDecided February 4, 2020No. 1:19-cv-05643

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 United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) and its acting director, Kenneth Cuccinelli, alleging that their failure to place her on the waiting list for a U-Visa
Form or filing I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
With that certification in hand, Camarena submitted a U-Visa petition on August 30, 2016.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Out of patience, she urges the Court to direct the Agency to review her application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, the Defendants’ motion to dismiss [11] is denied.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
As the Defendants see it, neither of the counts outlined in Camarena’s complaint states a claim on which relief can be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The Defendants have moved to dismiss Camarena’s complaint [11].
Disposition Government's motion denied; the case goes on The government's motion (to dismiss, or for summary judgment) was denied, so the case goes on. Counted as the applicant's ruling; a later decision in the case can still go either way. Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, the Defendants’ motion to dismiss [11] is denied.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, the Defendants’ motion to dismiss [11] is denied.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Thus, the Court declines to dismiss Camarena’s APA claim at the pleading stage.
The other claims The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Seeing no reason to deviate from that rule, the Court concludes that the Defendants have waived argument as to Camarena’s due process claim.
Months pending 41.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
With that certification in hand, Camarena submitted a U-Visa petition on August 30, 2016.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping rejected Read by a model
That argument might be relevant if Camarena had applied for a writ of mandamus, but it has little impact on her APA claim.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
U visa claims Waiting list: goes on Read by a model
In short, Camarena has plausibly alleged that the Agency failed to decide whether to place her on the U-Visa waiting list within a reasonable time.
Nationality Mexico Read by a model
Rosa Camarena, a citizen of Mexico

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:19-cv-05643
Filed
August 21, 2019
Ended
September 2, 2020
Suit's filing to its end
378 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 13 (dismissed: settled)

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 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.