Dumont v. Noem

District of KansasAnthony W. MattiviDecided August 4, 2026No. 2:25-cv-02736

Read the decision Original 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 He and his wife, Plaintiff Jasmine Dumont, bring this action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), asking the Court to compel USCIS to issue decisions on his applications.
Form or filing	I-485 (adjustment of status); I-765 (EAD) Read by a model Jean Dumont concurrently filed a Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status.
What the suit asked for	Decide the application Read by a model Count I alleges unreasonable delay in adjudicating the Form I-485
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model THE COURT THEREFORE ORDERS that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 14) is GRANTED.
Motion decided	Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) on January 12, 2026, presenting a facial challenge to the Court’s jurisdiction.
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) on January 12, 2026, presenting a facial challenge to the Court’s jurisdiction.
Disposition	Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model THE COURT THEREFORE ORDERS that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 14) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Prevailing party	Government Read by a model THE COURT THEREFORE ORDERS that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 14) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The delay claim	Dismissed Read by a model Plaintiffs’ Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Months pending	25.9 months from the application to the suit; 36.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model On July 24, 2023, Jasmine Dumont filed a Form I- 130 Petition for Alien Relative on her husband’s behalf, and Jean Dumont concurrently filed a Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status.
TRAC factors	The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings	Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied; Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model Count I is barred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)
Nationality	Haiti Read by a model Plaintiff Jean Clarck G. Dumont, a citizen of Haiti married to a United States citizen

How the case ended

Docket: No. 2:25-cv-02736
Filed: December 12, 2025
Ended: August 4, 2026
Suit's filing to its end: 235 days
How it ended: Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record: order 2026-08-04 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 Tenth 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.

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
Mukantagara v. Mullin, No. 24-4071 (10th Cir. Oct. 5, 2026) (on rehearing)

Tenth Circuit, October 5, 2026. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars review only of decisions the statute itself makes discretionary, so mandatory threshold determinations remain reviewable and discretion an agency removes by regulation does not change the analysis.

ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-10-29; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law.
Forest Guardians v. Babbitt, 174 F.3d 1178

Tenth Circuit, April 22, 1999. Missing a concrete statutory deadline is agency action unlawfully withheld that a court must compel, while without a deadline the question is unreasonable delay; the holding still binds in the Tenth Circuit.

ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Not followed in the Ninth Circuit by Al Otro Lado v. Noem, 138 F.4th 1102 (2025).