Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Illinois

Patel v. Noem

Northern District of IllinoisThomas Michael DurkinDecided September 17, 2025No. 1:25-cv-02857

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
At step one, USCIS determines whether the petition is “bona fide,” i.e., “made in good faith; without fraud or deceit,” referred to as the “Bona Fide Determination” (“BFD”).
Form or filing I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
Patel, an Indian national, brings this suit alleging unreasonable delay in the processing of his U visa petition.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
With his mandamus claim, Patel seeks an order compelling a BFD and placement on the waiting list immediately.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss is granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss is granted.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss is granted.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss is granted.
Months pending 9.2 months from the application to the suit; 15.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Patel and his wife submitted an application for U visa status to USCIS on June 11, 2024, and completed their biometrics appointments three months later.
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
This factor therefore favors Defendants.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
USCIS processes applications in the order they are submitted, expediting some applications subject to certain criteria. 8 C.F.R. § 214.14(d)(2); USCIS Policy Manual Ch. 5. This process constitutes a rule of reason.
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied Read by a model
Thus, § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) strips this Court of jurisdiction to review USCIS’s discretionary decision not to issue work authorization to Patel, or to compel USCIS to do so.
U visa claims Bona fide determination: dismissed; Work permit: dismissed under 1252(a)(2)(b); Waiting list: dismissed Read by a model
As such, his mandamus claim fails on this basis and is therefore dismissed.
Nationality India Read by a model
Patel is an Indian national who has lived in the United States for over four years.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-02857
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 15)
Filed
March 18, 2025
Ended
September 17, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
183 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant

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

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 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.