Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Illinois

Patel v. Noem

Northern District of IllinoisSharon Johnson ColemanDecided April 22, 2026No. 1:25-cv-11019

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
USCIS adjudicates U-visa petitions on a first-in, first-out basis, with priority on the waitlist determined by filing date.
Form or filing I-765 (EAD); I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
On January 13, 2025, Mr. and Mrs. Patel submitted complete Form I-918 U visa petitions and accompanying Form I-765 employment authorization applications to the USCIS Nebraska Service Center.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have unreasonably delayed adjudicating their Form I-918 Petitions for U-Nonimmigrant Status, including unreasonable delay in placing Plaintiffs on the statutory waiting list established by 8 C.F.R. § 214.14(d)(2).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss in its entirety [10].
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [10], pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [10], 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 Court grants Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss in its entirety [10].
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss in its entirety [10].
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss in its entirety [10].
Months pending 8.6 months from the application to the suit; 15.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On January 13, 2025, Mr. and Mrs. Patel submitted complete Form I-918 U visa petitions and accompanying Form I-765 employment authorization applications to the USCIS Nebraska Service Center.
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 government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
Accordingly, TRAC factor one favors Defendants.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Defendants argue USCIS applies a consistent first-in, first-out framework that constitutes a rule of reason, and that courts at the pleading stage have repeatedly so held. (Dkt. 11 at *9.). Plaintiffs did not explicitly respond to this argument and thus constitutes waiver.
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied; Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected; APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
Because the BFD is a predicate step to the EAD decision and both are discretionary under § 1184(p)(6), the jurisdictional bar extends to both the ultimate determinations and the pace of adjudication leading to them.
U visa claims Final decision: dismissed; Bona fide determination: dismissed under 1252(a)(2)(b); Work permit: dismissed under 1252(a)(2)(b); Other U visa claim: dismissed under 1252(a)(2)(b); Waiting list: dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss in its entirety [10].
Nationality India Read by a model
Plaintiff Hardik Hasmukhbhai Patel is an Indian citizen who has resided in the United States for approximately seven years.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-11019
Filed
October 1, 2025
Ended
April 22, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
203 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2026-04-22 for the defendants, ground not stated

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 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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.