Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

AITELIYEV v. MAYORKAS

District of ColumbiaChristopher R. CooperDecided February 12, 2024No. 1:22-cv-03852

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
After putting up the required capital, Plaintiffs petitioned the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) for their visas.
Form or filing I-526 (investor petition) Read by a model
Each filed his or her I-526 petition with USCIS between February 2019 and June 2021
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs therefore filed this suit to compel the agency to act, raising three challenges to their processing delays.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The government moves to dismiss the amended complaint in full.
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
The Court will, accordingly, grant the motion to dismiss on the unreasonable-delay claim
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
The Court will, accordingly, grant the motion to dismiss on the unreasonable-delay claim
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The Court will, accordingly, grant the motion to dismiss on the unreasonable-delay claim
The other claims Some dismissed, some go on Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; it is further ORDERED that Defendants shall file a renewed motion to dismiss the remaining claim within 60 days of this Order.
Months pending 59.9 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Each filed his or her I-526 petition with USCIS between February 2019 and June 2021
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the applicant
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
The visa-availability approach is a rule of reason, and the complaint does not plausibly allege that USCIS has deviated from its official policy.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
The visa-availability approach is a rule of reason, and the complaint does not plausibly allege that USCIS has deviated from its official policy.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:22-cv-03852
Filed
December 30, 2022
Ended
April 26, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
310 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
stipulated dismissal 2024-04-26; idb disp 12 (dismissed: voluntarily)

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.