Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Nevada

Lu v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)

District of NevadaCristina D. SilvaDecided September 30, 2025No. 2:25-cv-01581

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
Petitioners fail to demonstrate they have been wronged because of USCIS’s alleged delay in processing their forms and nor have they demonstrated the delay in processing the forms is unreasonable.
Form or filing I-130 (relative petition); I-131 (travel document) Read by a model
They ask this court to issue a writ of mandamus compelling the respondents to adjudicate their Forms I-130 and I-131, as well as monetary damages, attorney’s fees and costs, and other related relief.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
They ask this court to issue a writ of mandamus compelling the respondents to adjudicate their Forms I-130 and I-131, as well as monetary damages, attorney’s fees and costs, and other related relief.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondents’ motion to dismiss [ECF No. 13] is granted without prejudice.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Summary judgment Read by a model
Order Granting Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss, Denying as Moot Petitioners’ Emergency Motions, Motion for Hearing and Motion for Summary Judgment, and Denying Motion to Stay [ECF Nos. 9, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 21]
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
Order Granting Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss, Denying as Moot Petitioners’ Emergency Motions, Motion for Hearing and Motion for Summary Judgment, and Denying Motion to Stay
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondents’ motion to dismiss [ECF No. 13] is granted without prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondents’ motion to dismiss [ECF No. 13] is granted without prejudice.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondents’ motion to dismiss [ECF No. 13] is granted without prejudice.
Months pending 4.7 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
See ECF No. 1 at 9 (petitioners’ letter to Representative Susie Lee stating the forms were filed May 9, 2025).
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 neededfavors the government
Read by a model
There is also no evidence demonstrating that the agency has not applied the rule of reason in processing the petitioners’ forms.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
That is precisely what petitioners seek here: they ask this court to compel the respondents to move them to the front of the line.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

Other orders in this case

The group holds 4 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
Lu v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)This decision September 30, 2025 Cristina D. Silva Dismissed
Lu v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) October 29, 2025 Cristina D. Silva Denied in the government's favor
Lu v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) December 19, 2025 Cristina D. Silva Dismissed
Lu v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)The case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted January 20, 2026 Cristina D. Silva Denied in the government's favor

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:25-cv-01581
Filed
August 25, 2025
Ended
December 19, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
116 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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 Ninth 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.