Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Connecticut

Genc v. Renaud

District of ConnecticutJanet C. HallDecided February 5, 2024No. 3:22-cv-00485

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 May 17, 2021, USCIS issued a denial of Genc’s application.
Form or filing I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
In March 2016, Genc “filed a Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status (Form I-918)[.]”
What the suit asked for Not recorded Read by a model
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. NOS. 19 & 20)
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 19) is granted in part and denied in part, and defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 20) is denied.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. NOS. 19 & 20)
Disposition Remanded to the agency Sent back to the agency, with or without instructions. Read by a model
The case is remanded to USCIS to further consider and explain, based on the evidence in the record and in accordance with the law, whether plaintiff meets the statutory requirements for U nonimmigrant status.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 19) is granted in part and denied in part, and defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 20) is denied.
The other claims Remanded to the agency Read by a model
The case is remanded to USCIS to further consider and explain, based on the evidence in the record and in accordance with the law, whether plaintiff meets the statutory requirements for U nonimmigrant status.
Months pending 72.6 months from the application to the suit; 66.7 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
On October 5, 2021, USCIS granted the motion to reopen, but, once again, denied Genc’s application on two grounds.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
Here, plaintiff does not appear to dispute that the APA constitutes an available, adequate remedy in this case. See Pl.’s Opp. at 23-24. Accordingly, the court will not impose the extraordinary remedy of mandamus.
U visa claims Final decision: relief denied; Other U visa claim: relief denied; Other U visa claim: remanded to the agency Read by a model
The court thus denies plaintiff’s request for mandamus relief in Count Three.
Nationality Turkey Read by a model
Genc is a native citizen of Turkey.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:22-cv-00485
Filed
April 3, 2022
Ended
February 5, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
673 days
How it ended
Remanded to the agency
From the record
idb disp 11 (remanded to U.S. agency)

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 Second 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.