Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Alabama

Patel v. Noem

Northern District of AlabamaStaci G CorneliusDecided September 21, 2026No. 1:25-cv-01864

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,917 written decisions from 2,664 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 7:07 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 USCIS Read by a model
On April 2, 2025, the plaintiffs each submitted two form applications to USCIS: (1) Form I-918, seeking so-called “U” non-immigrant status (a “U Visa”) and (2) Form I-765, seeking employment authorization.
Form or filing I-765 (EAD) Read by a model
Form I-765, seeking employment authorization.
What the suit asked for Issue a work permit Read by a model
The complaint seeks an order requiring the defendants to process and adjudicate the plaintiffs’ requests for employment authorization.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, the motion to dismiss will be granted, and this matter will be dismissed without prejudice.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
The motion will be resolved on jurisdictional grounds, so Rule 12 (b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The defendants responded to the complaint with the pending motion to dismiss.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Accordingly, the motion to dismiss will be granted, and this matter will be dismissed without prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Accordingly, the motion to dismiss will be granted, and this matter will be dismissed without prejudice.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, the motion to dismiss will be granted, and this matter will be dismissed without prejudice.
Months pending 17.6 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On April 2, 2025, the plaintiffs each submitted two form applications to USCIS:
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
U visa claims Work permit: dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, the court lacks jurisdiction under either the Mandamus Act or the APA to adjudicate the plaintiffs’ claims.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-01864
Filed
October 27, 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.

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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.