Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Illinois

Chaudhari v. Mayorkas

Northern District of IllinoisJeremy C. DanielDecided December 16, 2024No. 1:24-cv-06893

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
Because USCIS has not yet adjudicated the plaintiffs’ applications, they seek an order compelling the defendants to adjudicate their EADs.
Form or filing I-765 (EAD); I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
The plaintiffs are foreign nationals who have filed U status and EAD applications before the USCIS.
What the suit asked for Issue a work permit Read by a model
Because USCIS has not yet adjudicated the plaintiffs’ applications, they seek an order compelling the defendants to adjudicate their EADs.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Because the plaintiffs lack standing, the Court does not reach the defendants’ other procedural arguments. Yet, for the sake of completeness, the Court briefly notes that, even if the plaintiffs had standing, their claims would still fail under Rule 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
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 defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
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
As in Khan and Gonzalez, the Court “lack[s] the power to review [the plaintiffs’] work-authorization claims here because the agency is not required to adjudicate [the plaintiffs’] requests.”

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-06893
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 22)
Filed
August 6, 2024
Ended
December 16, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
132 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant

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 Seventh 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.