Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Massachusetts

Queiroz Gomes v. Bondi

District of MassachusettsAllison Dale BurroughsDecided June 24, 2026No. 4:25-cv-11964

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
On October 18, 2024, USCIS sent Plaintiffs letters telling them that it had determined that their applications were not bona fide.
Form or filing I-192; I-914 (T visa) Read by a model
On September 3, 2024, Queiroz Gomes filed an I-914 Application for T Nonimmigrant Status and a Form I-192 Application for Advance Permission to Enter as a Nonimmigrant, and her parents and brother filed derivative applications.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs ask the Court “to declare that Plaintiffs are entitled to have their T visa applications and waiver applications immediately adjudicated.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, the government’s motion to dismiss, [ECF No. 9], is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Presently before the Court is the government’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Presently before the Court is the government’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
The government’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is GRANTED as to Counts I and II.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
The government’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is GRANTED as to Counts I and II.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The government’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is GRANTED as to Counts I and II.
The other claims Some dismissed, some go on Read by a model
Counts I, II, IV, and V of the Complaint are dismissed without prejudice. This case will proceed on Count III.
Months pending 10.2 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 September 3, 2024, Queiroz Gomes filed an I-914 Application for T Nonimmigrant Status and a Form I-192 Application for Advance Permission to Enter as a Nonimmigrant, and her parents and brother filed derivative applications.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
Accordingly, the first and second TRAC factors weigh against a finding of unreasonable delay.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ argument that “there is no information before the Court at this juncture indicating how USCIS actually administers its first in, first out system,” [ECF No. 22 at 9], is not persuasive
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Plaintiffs acknowledge Barbosa Gomes’s removal, [ECF No. 22 at 6 n.2], and do not dispute the government’s argument that it moots her claims. Accordingly, the government’s motion is granted as unopposed as to Barbosa Gomes’s claims.
Nationality Brazil Read by a model
They are Brazilian nationals.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 4:25-cv-11964
Filed
July 10, 2025
Ended
August 21, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
407 days
How it ended
Ended, outcome not recorded
From the record
terminated; no disposition recorded

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 First 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.