Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Missouri
Wang v. Edlow
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 |
USCIS
Read by a model
He also asserts that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service has unreasonably failed to timely adjudicate his application, even though he interviewed with USCIS in December 2024 and provided the requested additional evidence in February 2025. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
I-485 (adjustment of status)
Read by a model
Wang asserts that he filed an I-485 application for adjustment of status in June 2024 based on his approved I-130 petition for alien relative. |
| What the suit asked for |
Decide the application
Read by a model
Just as the applicant argued in Mokone, he argues that the Court has the power to compel USCIS to decide, just not what decision to make. |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
The Court dismisses this action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. |
| Motion decided | None Read by a model |
| Whose motion |
The court on its own
Read by a model
The Court ordered Wang to show cause why it should not dismiss the action in light of its recent decision in Mokone, where it held that the statute bars courts from reviewing delays in adjudicating I-485 applications. |
| Disposition |
Dismissed
The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness.
Read by a model
The Court dismisses this action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. |
| Prevailing party |
Government
Read by a model
The Court dismisses this action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. |
| The delay claim |
Dismissed
Read by a model
Because Wang fails to adequately distinguish this case from Mokone, see doc. 10, the Court dismisses his case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. |
| Months pending |
27.5 months from the application to the court's decision
Read by a model
Wang asserts that he filed an I-485 application for adjustment of status in June 2024 based on his approved I-130 petition for alien relative. |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings |
Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied
Read by a model
Because Wang fails to adequately distinguish this case from Mokone, see doc. 10, the Court dismisses his case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 4:26-cv-01305
- Filed
- August 14, 2026
- Ended
- October 1, 2026
- Suit's filing to its end
- 48 days
- How it ended
- Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
- From the record
- order 2026-10-01 dismisses for want of jurisdiction
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 Eighth 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.
-
Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233
Supreme Court, January 20, 2010. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars review only of decisions whose discretionary character is specified by statute, not discretion the agency gives itself by regulation.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328
Supreme Court, May 16, 2022. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars review of any judgment regarding the granting of the listed forms of relief, including the factual findings on which a denial of adjustment rests.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, 604 U.S. 6
Supreme Court, December 10, 2024. Revoking an approved visa petition under § 1155 is a discretionary decision or action that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) places beyond judicial review.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55
Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Thigulla v. Jaddou, 94 F.4th 770
Eighth Circuit, March 5, 2024. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1255(a) bar review of USCIS's decision to delay adjudicating adjustment applications under its adjudication hold policy, so the district court lacked jurisdiction.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Eighth Circuit, December 21, 2018. The Eighth Circuit applies the TRAC factors to a petition to compel delayed agency action.
ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has not finished reviewing this published circuit decision, so it shows no signal yet. Its review began with circuit decisions in immigration cases and is being extended to the other published circuit decisions that immigration precedent relies on. Read the decisions…