Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Michigan

Bahaduri v. Noem

Western District of MichiganHala Y. JarbouDecided March 31, 2026No. 1:25-cv-01297

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,917 written decisions from 2,664 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 7:07 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
USCIS has yet to adjudicate Plaintiff’s application, which has now been pending for over three years.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
On January 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed an I-589 application for asylum.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Plaintiff also seeks a writ of mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 compelling Defendants to adjudicate his asylum claim.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Thus, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss with regard to Plaintiff’s request for mandamus relief, and otherwise deny it.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim (ECF No. 8).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim (ECF No. 8).
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
Thus, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss with regard to Plaintiff’s request for mandamus relief, and otherwise deny it.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Thus, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss with regard to Plaintiff’s request for mandamus relief, and otherwise deny it.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Thus, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss with regard to Plaintiff’s request for mandamus relief, and otherwise deny it.
Months pending 38 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On January 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed an I-589 application for asylum.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonneutral
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the applicant
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the applicant
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
Thus, this factor is at best neutral.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing found neutral; Line-jumping rejected Read by a model
USCIS has stopped adjudicating all asylum applications, and there is insufficient briefing and evidence at this stage to determine whether this no-adjudication policy is a rule of reason. Thus, this factor is at best neutral.
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected; APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
In sum, § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) does not preclude jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim.
Nationality Afghanistan Read by a model
Plaintiff is a citizen of Afghanistan

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-01297
Filed
October 25, 2025
Ended
July 23, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
271 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
stipulated dismissal 2026-07-23

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 Sixth 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.