Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Louisiana

Hawkins v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

Eastern District of LouisianaNannette Jolivette BrownDecided July 21, 2026No. 2:25-cv-01665

Read the decisionOriginal 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
The Complaint alleges that to date, the USCIS has refused to adjudicate the Form I-130 or Form I-485 (collectively, the “Petitions”).
Form or filing I-130 (relative petition); I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
pending Petition of Alien Relative (“Form I-130”)2 and Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (“Form I-485”).3
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs request that the Court order the USCIS to adjudicate the Petitions within a reasonable amount of time, and grant attorney’s fees, court costs, and expenses to Plaintiffs.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the USCIS’s Motion to Dismiss102 is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
In the instant motion, the USCIS moves the Court to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims because it alleges that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case and Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for which relief can be granted.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendant the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (the “USCIS”) Motion to Dismiss.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Therefore, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over all of Plaintiffs’ claims and dismisses this matter without prejudice.
Months pending 14.1 months from the application to the suit; 25.3 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On June 10, 2024, Hawkins filed a Form I-130 with the USCIS.8 On that same day, Diab filed a Form I-485 with the USCIS.
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
Thus, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review Plaintiffs’ claims under the APA, because the INA bars judicial review.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
According to the Complaint, on March 24, 2017, Hawkins, who is a United States citizen, married “her immigrant spouse,” Diab.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:25-cv-01665
Filed
August 13, 2025
Ended
July 23, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
245 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2026-07-21 dismisses for want of jurisdiction

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why.

Supreme Court and Fifth 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.