Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of North Carolina

Kharchenko v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Western District of North CarolinaMatthew E. OrsoDecided October 16, 2026No. 3:26-cv-00769

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
“Thus, any writ of mandamus or other court order issued to compel DHS or USCIS to act on the Form I-589 would be improper because Defendants lack jurisdiction to act on [Oleg’s] asylum application.”
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
On September 25, 2026, Tetiana and Dmytro filed this action to compel Defendants to rule on Oleg’s I-589 pending application for asylum and withholding of removal.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
On September 25, 2026, Tetiana and Dmytro filed this action to compel Defendants to rule on Oleg’s I-589 pending application for asylum and withholding of removal.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, the Complaint will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and the pending motions will be denied as moot.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The court on its own Read by a model
THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on an independent review of the record.
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
As there is no live case or controversy before the Court, the instant action is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and all pending motions are denied as moot.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
As there is no live case or controversy before the Court, the instant action is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and all pending motions are denied as moot.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
As there is no live case or controversy before the Court, the instant action is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and all pending motions are denied as moot.
Months pending Not stated at filing The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
As there is no live case or controversy before the Court, the instant action is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and all pending motions are denied as moot.
Nationality Ukraine Read by a model
The Plaintiffs, Mecklenburg County residents Oleg Kharchenko, his wife Tetiana Kharchenko, and their son Dmytro Kharchenko, are all citizens of Ukraine.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:26-cv-00769
Filed
September 25, 2026
Ended
October 16, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
21 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
order 2026-10-16 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 Fourth 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.