Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of North Carolina

Ahmad v. Edlow

Western District of North CarolinaMatthew E. OrsoDecided June 10, 2026No. 3:25-cv-00841

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 USCIS Read by a model
the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has approved
Form or filing I-130 (relative petition) Read by a model
adjudicate his Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Pro se Plaintiff initiated this matter on October 23, 2025, asking this Court for a writ of mandamus and declaratory relief to compel Defendants to adjudicate his Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative.
Kind of order A stipulated or agreed order Read by a model
the Court liberally construes pro se Plaintiff’s motion as a notice of dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i)
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
On January 30, 2026, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff and Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss.
Disposition Stipulated or agreed order An order the parties asked for together, or the plaintiff's own dismissal. Not counted as either side's win. Read by a model
the Court liberally construes pro se Plaintiff’s motion as a notice of dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i)
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
the Court liberally construes pro se Plaintiff’s motion as a notice of dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i)
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
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

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:25-cv-00841
Filed
October 23, 2025
Ended
June 10, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
230 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2026-06-10 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 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.