Mandamus decisions / District of South Carolina

Li v. Edlow

District of South CarolinaWilliam S. BrownDecided May 21, 2026No. 3:26-cv-02000

Read the decision Original 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 However, USCIS informed Plaintiff that his case was still pending adjudication.
Form or filing	I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model Plaintiff seeks relief for the delay in adjudicating his I-485 application.
What the suit asked for	Decide the application Read by a model Plaintiff asks the Court to issue a writ of mandamus to compel Defendant to process Plaintiff’s I- 485 in an expeditious manner, without any further delay.
Kind of order	A magistrate judge's recommendation Read by a model REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Motion decided	None Read by a model
Whose motion	The court on its own Read by a model Screening and Liberal Construction of Pro Se Filings A careful review has been made of the pro se Petition under established local procedures in this judicial district.
Disposition	Magistrate judge's recommendation A magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The district judge decides whether to adopt it, so it is not counted as either side's win. Read by a model REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Prevailing party	Neither side Read by a model REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The delay claim	Dismissed Read by a model For the reasons above, it is recommended that this action be DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Months pending	19 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model Plaintiff filed an I- 485 Application to Adjust to Permanent Resident Status (application receipt number MSC2590063431) on October 21, 2024.
TRAC factors	The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings	Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied Read by a model This analysis also applies in the present case. Accordingly, because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, this action should be dismissed.
Nationality	China Read by a model Plaintiff is a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision. How decisions are grouped into cases.

Decision	Decided	Judge	Disposition
Li v. EdlowThis decision	May 21, 2026	William S. Brown	Magistrate judge's recommendation
Li v. EdlowThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted	June 18, 2026	Cheryl Allen Lydon	Dismissed

How the case ended

Docket: No. 3:26-cv-02000
On the docket: This ruling (ECF 8)
Filed: May 18, 2026
Ended: June 18, 2026
Suit's filing to its end: 31 days
How it ended: Ended once the agency acted
From the record: voluntary dismissal 2026-06-29; 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.

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 Fourth 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.

Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233

Supreme Court, January 20, 2010. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars review only of decisions whose discretionary character is specified by statute, not discretion the agency gives itself by regulation.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328

Supreme Court, May 16, 2022. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars review of any judgment regarding the granting of the listed forms of relief, including the factual findings on which a denial of adjustment rests.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, 604 U.S. 6

Supreme Court, December 10, 2024. Revoking an approved visa petition under § 1155 is a discretionary decision or action that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) places beyond judicial review.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55

Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Gonzalez v. Cuccinelli, 985 F.3d 357

Fourth Circuit, January 14, 2021. Courts may review delay in placing U-visa petitioners on the waitlist under the TRAC factors and should not dismiss such claims at the pleading stage, but lack jurisdiction over delay in pre-waitlist work-permit requests, a point on which the Sixth Circuit disagrees.

ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Rejected in the Sixth Circuit by Barrios Garcia v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 25 F.4th 430 (2022).
Lovo v. Miller, 107 F.4th 199

Fourth Circuit, July 3, 2024. The 'decision or action' language of § 1182(a)(9)(B)(v), which the court treated as coextensive with § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), does not reach USCIS inaction, so a district court may hear a claim that USCIS unreasonably delayed a provisional unlawful-presence waiver.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 5 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-07; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
Kale v. Alfonso-Royals, 139 F.4th 329

Fourth Circuit, June 3, 2025. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), read with § 1255(a), bars review of USCIS's adjudication hold policy for adjustment applications affected by visa retrogression, joining the Third, Fifth, Eighth and Eleventh Circuits.

ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-11-09; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law. The citation index lists 34 other decisions citing it, none a Supreme Court, BIA or Attorney General precedent or a published circuit opinion; ImmCite's status does not review them.