Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Georgia

Ghaswala v. Jaddou

Northern District of GeorgiaSteven D. GrimbergDecided September 28, 2026No. 1:25-cv-01942

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
USCIS received Plaintiffs’ applications on October 7, 2024, but to date USCIS has not taken any action on their applications.
Form or filing I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
Subsequently, in October 2024, A.G. applied for a U Visa, and his wife and daughter applied as qualifying family members.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs seek an order compelling USCIS to conduct either a BFD or waitlist determination on their applications.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss [ECF 6] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss is both an attack on the legal sufficiency of the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and a facial attack on subject matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
This case is before the Court on the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Ur Jaddou, the director of U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) [ECF 6].
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is granted as to Plaintiffs’ BFD claims but denied as to their waitlist claims. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is denied.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is granted as to Plaintiffs’ BFD claims but denied as to their waitlist claims. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is denied.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is granted as to Plaintiffs’ BFD claims but denied as to their waitlist claims. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is denied.
Months pending 23.7 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
USCIS received Plaintiffs’ applications on October 7, 2024, but to date USCIS has not taken any action on their applications.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the applicant
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the applicant
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
While not dispositive, this at least permits the reasonable inference that the BFD process is not strictly first-in, first-out, or that Defendants do not always adhere to this process.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing rejected; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
While not dispositive, this at least permits the reasonable inference that the BFD process is not strictly first-in, first-out, or that Defendants do not always adhere to this process.
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied Read by a model
Thus, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) strips the Court of jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs’ claim that their BFD has been unreasonably delayed.
U visa claims Bona fide determination: dismissed under 1252(a)(2)(b); Waiting list: goes on Read by a model
Thus, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) strips the Court of jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs’ claim that their BFD has been unreasonably delayed.
Nationality India Read by a model
Plaintiffs are citizens of India.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-01942
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 13)
Filed
April 10, 2025
Status
Pending as of the last docket check

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why. Other suits in this court.

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 Eleventh 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.