Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Pennsylvania

K.F.G. v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS) etal

Eastern District of PennsylvaniaJoseph F. Leeson Jr.Decided September 25, 2025No. 5:25-cv-05051

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
Count II of the Complaint is a Mandamus Act claim based on USCIS’s failure to determine K.F.G.’s eligibility for U-visa waiting list.
Form or filing I-765 (EAD); I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
In February 2021, K.F.G. filed a petition for a U-visa status as a victim of domestic violence and stalking with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”).
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
The Complaint also asks for an order compelling Defendants to determine K.F.G.’s eligibility for a U-visa or for 042823 placement on the U-visa waiting list.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The Application is granted and, for the following reasons, Count II (Mandamus) is dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The court on its own Read by a model
Where a plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is required to screen the complaint and to sua sponte dismiss any claims
Disposition Granted in part The principal motion was granted in part and denied in part. Read by a model
The Application is granted and, for the following reasons, Count II (Mandamus) is dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Count II is therefore dismissed with prejudice.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, because the APA provides an adequate remedy for her claims of undue delay in the adjudication of her U-visa petition, mandamus relief is unavailable. Count II is therefore dismissed with prejudice.
Months pending 54.6 months from the application to the suit; 55.3 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
In February 2021, K.F.G. filed a petition for a U-visa status as a victim of domestic violence and stalking with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”).
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
Accordingly, because the APA provides a remedy for K.F.G.’s complaint of undue delay, mandamus relief under § 1361 is not available.
U visa claims Bona fide determination: goes on; Waiting list: dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, because the APA provides an adequate remedy for her claims of undue delay in the adjudication of her U-visa petition, mandamus relief is unavailable. Count II is therefore dismissed with prejudice.
Nationality Honduras Read by a model
Plaintiff, a citizen of Honduras, entered the United States in 2005 when she was approximately fifteen (15) years old.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 5:25-cv-05051
Filed
September 3, 2025
Ended
April 30, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
239 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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 Third 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.