Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

PRAJAPATI v. BLINKEN

District of ColumbiaJia M. CobbDecided May 7, 2024No. 1:23-cv-03246

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
As such, if “USCIS has not completed its waiting list processing” in the first place—which is exactly what Plaintiffs allege—then the State Department has neither the duty nor the authority to issue parole documents to the derivative beneficiary living abroad.
Form or filing I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
awaiting decisions on their U visa applications, and have yet to receive parole.
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
a mandatory duty to “grant deferred action or parole to U-1 petitioners and qualifying family members” after a petitioner is placed on the U visa “waiting list.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
First, the Court dismisses all claims against the Secretary of State for failure to state a claim.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Other motion to dismiss; Transfer Read by a model
The Government Defendants moved to dismiss the action or, in the alternative, to transfer. ECF 3 at 5 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3), (6)).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The Government Defendants moved to dismiss the action or, in the alternative, to transfer.
Disposition Granted in the government's favor The principal motion was granted in full: summary judgment for either side, an injunction or TRO, a writ or order to act, fees. A motion to dismiss granted in full counts as Dismissed; a transfer is listed apart. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to transfer, ECF 3, is GRANTED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to transfer, ECF 3, is GRANTED.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
this suit shall be TRANSFERRED to the Middle District of Georgia, where the remaining Defendant shall have thirty days following the docketing of the suit in that district to answer or file a renewed motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)
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 Other U visa claim: goes on; Waiting list: goes on Read by a model
this suit shall be TRANSFERRED to the Middle District of Georgia, where the remaining Defendant shall have thirty days following the docketing of the suit in that district to answer or file a renewed motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-03246
Filed
October 30, 2023
Ended
May 7, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
190 days
How it ended
Transferred
From the record
idb disp 0 (transferred to another district)

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 D.C. 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.