Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Illinois

Raval v. United States Citizen and Immigration Services

Northern District of IllinoisManish S. ShahDecided July 16, 2026No. 1:25-cv-12094

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
To date, USCIS has not acted on either submission.
Form or filing I-765 (EAD); I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
In January 2025, Raval submitted a U Visa petition to United States Citizenship and Immigration Services and applied for employment authorization.
What the suit asked for Issue a work permit Read by a model
and adjudicate his application for employment authorization.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The government’s motion to dismiss, [13], is granted. Enter judgment dismissing the case without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
The government’s motion to dismiss, [13], is granted. Enter judgment dismissing the case without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The government’s motion to dismiss, [13], is granted.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Enter judgment dismissing the case without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The government’s motion to dismiss, [13], is granted.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Enter judgment dismissing the case without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
Months pending 18 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
In January 2025, Raval submitted a U Visa petition to United States Citizenship and Immigration Services and applied for employment authorization.
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
Because when and whether to grant employment authorization to a U Visa petitioner are discretionary decisions exclusively entrusted to the Secretary, this court lacks jurisdiction and the motion is granted.
U visa claims Bona fide determination: dismissed under 1252(a)(2)(b); Work permit: dismissed under 1252(a)(2)(b) Read by a model
The statute bars review over any decision or action of the Secretary, including predicate decisions like fact finding necessary to decide an application. See Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328, 339–40 (2022). Whether the pending U Visa petition is bona fide is such a decision.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-12094
Filed
October 2, 2025
Ended
July 16, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
287 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2026-07-16 dismisses for want of jurisdiction

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 Seventh 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.