Mandamus decisions / District of South Carolina
Li v. Edlow
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 | Not recorded Read by a model |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
I-485 (adjustment of status)
Read by a model
Plaintiff filed this action by filing a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel Defendant to process his I-485 Application. |
| What the suit asked for |
Decide the application
Read by a model
Plaintiff filed this action by filing a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel Defendant to process his I-485 Application. |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
the court finds no clear error, adopts the Report, ECF No. 8, and incorporates the Report by reference herein. |
| Motion decided | None Read by a model |
| Whose motion |
The court on its own
Read by a model
As a result, this matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE without leave to amend and without issuance and service of process. |
| Disposition |
Dismissed
The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness.
Read by a model
As a result, this matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE without leave to amend and without issuance and service of process. |
| Prevailing party |
Government
Read by a model
As a result, this matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE without leave to amend and without issuance and service of process. |
| The delay claim |
Dismissed
Read by a model
As a result, this matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE without leave to amend and without issuance and service of process. |
| Months pending | Not stated Read by a model |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings | None Read by a model |
Other orders in this case
The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision, this one. How decisions are grouped into cases.
| Decision | Decided | Judge | Disposition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Li v. Edlow | May 21, 2026 | William S. Brown | Magistrate judge's recommendation |
| Li v. EdlowThis decisionThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted | June 18, 2026 | Cheryl Allen Lydon | Dismissed |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 3:26-cv-02000
- Filed
- May 18, 2026
- Ended
- June 18, 2026
- Suit's filing to its end
- 31 days
- How it ended
- Ended once the agency acted
- From the record
- voluntary dismissal 2026-06-29; idb disp 12 (dismissed: voluntarily)
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 Fourth 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.
-
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55
Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Gonzalez v. Cuccinelli, 985 F.3d 357
Fourth Circuit, January 14, 2021. Courts may review delay in placing U-visa petitioners on the waitlist under the TRAC factors and should not dismiss such claims at the pleading stage, but lack jurisdiction over delay in pre-waitlist work-permit requests, a point on which the Sixth Circuit disagrees.
ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Rejected in the Sixth Circuit by Barrios Garcia v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 25 F.4th 430 (2022).
-
Lovo v. Miller, 107 F.4th 199
Fourth Circuit, July 3, 2024. The 'decision or action' language of § 1182(a)(9)(B)(v), which the court treated as coextensive with § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), does not reach USCIS inaction, so a district court may hear a claim that USCIS unreasonably delayed a provisional unlawful-presence waiver.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 5 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-07; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.