Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Massachusetts

Mir v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

District of MassachusettsPaul G. LevensonDecided October 16, 2026No. 1:26-cv-10915

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 ICE Read by a model
Mr. Mir’s counsel has sought assistance from Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (“ICE”) Enforcement and Removal Operations (“ERO”) division, to no avail.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa); I-90 (green card renewal) Read by a model
Mr. Mir has applied for a replacement permanent resident card and a returning resident SB-1 visa
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
both claims hinge on the same question: whether Defendants have a non-discretionary duty to facilitate Mr. Mir’s physical return to the United States.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is ALLOWED, all claims are dismissed, and the Plaintiff’s Request for Injunctive Relief is DENIED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 9) (the “Motion”) and Mr. Mir’s Request for Injunctive Relief (Docket No. 14 at 15–16) (the “Request for Injunctive Relief”) which Mr. Mir raised in his opposition to the Motion.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 9) (the “Motion”) and Mr. Mir’s Request for Injunctive Relief (Docket No. 14 at 15–16)
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is ALLOWED, all claims are dismissed, and the Plaintiff’s Request for Injunctive Relief is DENIED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is ALLOWED, all claims are dismissed, and the Plaintiff’s Request for Injunctive Relief is DENIED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The Complaint has not plausibly alleged a legal source for such a duty, so both Count I and Count II will be dismissed.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is ALLOWED, all claims are dismissed, and the Plaintiff’s Request for Injunctive Relief is DENIED.
Months pending 24 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Moreover, Mr. Mir has been trying to return to the United States since his immigration proceedings were terminated two years ago.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:26-cv-10915
Filed
February 18, 2026
Ended
October 16, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
240 days
How it ended
Ended, outcome not recorded
From the record
terminated; no disposition recorded

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.