Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Louisiana

Patel v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

Eastern District of LouisianaBrandon S. LongDecided January 20, 2026No. 2:25-cv-00097

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
Mr. Patel claims that USCIS has unreasonably delayed in adjudicating his request for an I-485 application for adjustment of status.
Form or filing I-130 (relative petition); I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
Mr. Patel claims that USCIS has unreasonably delayed in adjudicating his request for an I-485 application for adjustment of status.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Specifically, the Patels request that the Court declare the delays unreasonable and compel USCIS to make a final decision on each pending application within 30 days of the interview.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ unopposed motion17 to dismiss is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
USCIS moved to dismiss the Patels’ complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and, alternatively, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
USCIS moved to dismiss the Patels’ complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and, alternatively, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ claims are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ unopposed motion17 to dismiss is GRANTED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The Patels’ claims seeking prompt adjudication shall be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Months pending 14.3 months from the application to the suit The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
On November 6, 2023, Mr. Patel filed his Form I-485 Adjustment of Status petition.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied; Held moot Read by a model
Because the INA strips this Court of jurisdiction to review USCIS’s decision (or pace of decision), Plaintiffs’ claim seeking prompt adjudication of the I-485 petition must be dismissed without prejudice.
Nationality India Read by a model
Sandip Patel, a non-U.S. citizen and Indian national
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Twinkal Patel, a U.S. citizen, filed a Form I-130 Petition for Alien Relative on behalf of her husband, Sandip

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:25-cv-00097
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 6)
Filed
January 13, 2025
Ended
January 21, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
373 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 3 (dismissed: lack of jurisdiction)

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

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 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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.