Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Louisiana

Jammu v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

Eastern District of LouisianaJanis Van MeerveldDecided February 11, 2026No. 2:25-cv-00815

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
More than five years later when Jammu filed the present Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Mandamus Relief on April 27, 2025, USCIS had not taken any action on the I-730 Petitions.
Form or filing I-730 (refugee or asylee relative petition) Read by a model
He filed three Form I-730 Petitions with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) on March 24, 2020, including all required evidence.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
The plaintiff in this lawsuit seeks to compel the federal agency defendant to adjudicate three immigration petitions that have been pending for over five years without a decision.
Kind of order A magistrate judge's recommendation Read by a model
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
USCIS appeared and filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which the District Judge referred to the undersigned for a report and recommendation.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
USCIS appeared and filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)
Disposition Magistrate judge's recommendation A magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The district judge decides whether to adopt it, so it is not counted as either side's win. Read by a model
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
It is therefore RECOMMENDED that the government’s Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED, and this case be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
It is therefore RECOMMENDED that the government’s Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED, and this case be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Months pending 61.1 months from the application to the suit; 70.6 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
He filed three Form I-730 Petitions with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) on March 24, 2020, including all required evidence.
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
prioritizing Plaintiff's application over other applicants, who may have been waiting even longer for a decision and are at least ‘equally deserving of prompt adjudication,’ thereby producing ‘no net gain’ for the asylum system overall.”
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied Read by a model
Accordingly, § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) strips this court of any jurisdiction it might otherwise have had to review the USCIS’s delay in adjudicating Jammu’s I-730 petitions pursuant to § 1158(b)(3)(A).

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:25-cv-00815
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 11)
Filed
April 27, 2025
Ended
February 26, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
305 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2026-02-11 dismisses for want of jurisdiction; 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.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

Supreme Court and Fifth 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.