Passim

Mandamus decisions / Middle District of Tennessee

Singh v. Mayorkas

Middle District of TennesseeEli J. RichardsonDecided February 5, 2024No. 3:23-cv-00527

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,917 written decisions from 2,664 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 7:07 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
Via this action, Plaintiff seeks to compel USCIS to make a decision (metaphorically, thumbs-up or thumbs down) on the Application.
Form or filing I-601A (provisional waiver) Read by a model
The Application was an application for what is known as a provisional unlawful presence waiver (presented via USCIS Form I-601A) that, according to the Petition, was filed in November 2021.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Via this action, Plaintiff seeks to compel USCIS to make a decision (metaphorically, thumbs-up or thumbs down) on the Application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, the Motion (Doc. No. 9) is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, the Motion (Doc. No. 9) is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Pending before the court is “Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss” (Doc. No. 9, “Motion”), which is supported by an accompanying memorandum (Doc. No. 10).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, the Motion (Doc. No. 9) is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, the Motion (Doc. No. 9) is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, the Motion (Doc. No. 9) is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Months pending 26.7 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
The Application was an application for what is known as a provisional unlawful presence waiver (presented via USCIS Form I-601A) that, according to the Petition, was filed in November 2021.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
In effect, he asks the Court to inquire into USCIS's procedures, decide if they are reasonable, and, if need be, compel it to alter the way petitions are processed so that his petition is processed more speedily, thereby displacing others.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:23-cv-00527
Filed
May 23, 2023
Ended
February 5, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
258 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2024-02-05 dismisses for want of jurisdiction; 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 Sixth 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.