Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Illinois

Nayi v. MAYORKAS

Northern District of IllinoisSunil R. HarjaniDecided September 9, 2025No. 1:25-cv-02024

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 Complaint alleges an unreasonable delay in USCIS’s “statutory obligation” to process their petition.
Form or filing I-918 (U visa); I-918A Read by a model
On June 25, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an I-918 petition for Mrs. Nayi and I-918A petitions for her husband and children for U nonimmigrant status.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs claim that Defendants have unreasonable delayed the determination of whether Plaintiffs have “bona fide” petitions, the decision on whether Plaintiffs are authorized for employment; and the processing of their petitions.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss [5] is granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Other motion to dismiss Read by a model
moved to dismiss this action under Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(3), and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ Complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss [5] is granted.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ Complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
Months pending 8.2 months from the application to the suit; 14.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On June 25, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an I-918 petition for Mrs. Nayi and I-918A petitions for her husband and children for U nonimmigrant status.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
Thus, the first factor favors USCIS.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Without a statutory scheme, the Court has no reason to disturb USCIS’s processing of petitions in the order in which they are filed. Thus, the second factor favors USCIS.
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied; Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected; APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
In conclusion, the Court holds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ APA claims alleging unreasonable delay in USCIS’s determining whether Plaintiffs’ petitions are bona fide and whether Plaintiffs are authorized for employment.
U visa claims Final decision: dismissed; Bona fide determination: dismissed under 1252(a)(2)(b); Work permit: dismissed under 1252(a)(2)(b) Read by a model
Thus, the Court concludes that the Complaint fails to state an APA claim for unreasonable delay and dismisses the remainder of Count I under Rule 12(b)(6).
Nationality India Read by a model
Plaintiffs are natives and citizens of India who live in Cook County, Illinois.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-02024
Filed
February 26, 2025
Ended
September 9, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
195 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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.