Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Massachusetts

V.U.C. v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

District of MassachusettsRichard Gaylore StearnsDecided August 18, 2021No. 1:21-cv-10652

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
By way of their Complaint, plaintiffs V.U.C. and P.C.C. seek to compel the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to adjudicate their eligibility for the U nonimmigrant status (U-visa) waitlist and Employment Authorization Documents (EAD).
Form or filing I-765 (EAD); I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
V.U.C. filed a U-visa petition and an EAD application on October 24, 2017.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
By way of their Complaint, plaintiffs V.U.C. and P.C.C. seek to compel the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to adjudicate their eligibility for the U nonimmigrant status (U-visa) waitlist and Employment Authorization Documents (EAD).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss is ALLOWED.
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 subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss is ALLOWED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss is ALLOWED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss is ALLOWED.
Months pending 45.8 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
V.U.C. filed a U-visa petition and an EAD application on October 24, 2017.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablenot reached
  • 3. Human health and welfarenot reached
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicednot reached
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
“The duration of administrative proceedings, without more, cannot suffice to demonstrate that an agency’s actions are unreasonable.”
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
USCIS’s practice (as stated in its public documents) of considering U-visa petitions in the order they are received (with limited exceptions not raised here) is a “rule of reason” (TRAC factor one).
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model
Accordingly, USCIS has no discretion over whether to adjudicate a U-visa petition for waitlist eligibility. A claim that USCIS unreasonably delayed a U-visa waitlist determination is thus reviewable under the APA.
U visa claims Work permit: dismissed under 1252(a)(2)(b); Waiting list: dismissed Read by a model
There is no similar mandate, however, directing the Secretary to implement the permissive work authorization provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1184 (p)(6).

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:21-cv-10652
Filed
April 19, 2021
Ended
August 19, 2021
Suit's filing to its end
122 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant

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 First 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.