Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Illinois

Aceves Lobatos v. Noem

Northern District of IllinoisDecided June 11, 2025No. 1:25-cv-01223

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
Plaintiffs request that the Court direct USCIS to adjudicate Lobatos’s I-918 Petition for U Nonimmigrant status and Rubio’s Form I-918A derivative petition.
Form or filing I-765 (EAD); I-918 (U visa); I-918A Read by a model
Plaintiffs request that the Court direct USCIS to adjudicate Lobatos’s I-918 Petition for U Nonimmigrant status and Rubio’s Form I-918A derivative petition.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs request that the Court direct USCIS to adjudicate Lobatos’s I-918 Petition for U Nonimmigrant status and Rubio’s Form I-918A derivative petition.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the forgoing reasons, the Court grants Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [6].
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, arguing that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and, alternatively, that Plaintiffs fail to state a claim.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
For the forgoing reasons, the Court grants Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [6].
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the forgoing reasons, the Court grants Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [6].
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the forgoing reasons, the Court grants Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [6].
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the forgoing reasons, the Court grants Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [6].
Months pending 15.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On February 26, 2024, Lobatos filed Form I-918, Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS).
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Lobatos and Rubio provide no facts to contextualize their position in line relative to other petitioners waiting for their claims.
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied Read by a model
For these reasons, the Court concludes that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars it from exercising jurisdiction over Lobatos and Rubio’s request for the Court to compel the DHS Secretary and USCIS Director to adjudicate the petition.
U visa claims Final decision: dismissed under 1252(a)(2)(b); Bona fide determination: dismissed under 1252(a)(2)(b); Work permit: dismissed under 1252(a)(2)(b); Waiting list: dismissed Read by a model
For these reasons, the Court concludes that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars it from exercising jurisdiction over Lobatos and Rubio’s request for the Court to compel the DHS Secretary and USCIS Director to adjudicate the petition.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-01223
Filed
February 5, 2025
Ended
June 11, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
126 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 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.