Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Massachusetts

Quichimbo Sumba et al v. Edlow et al

District of MassachusettsBrian E. MurphyDecided February 12, 2026No. 1:25-cv-13911

Read the decisionOriginal on GovInfo

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
Defendants, including U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), which adjudicates T visa applications, have unreasonably delayed determining whether Plaintiffs’ T visa applications are “bona fide,” meaning properly filed, complete, and presenting prima facie eligibility.
Form or filing I-914 (T visa) Read by a model
Plaintiffs are a family, two adults and one child, who submitted applications for T non-immigrant status (commonly known as “T visas”) in August 2024.
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
Plaintiffs seek to compel Defendants to make that determination and assert claims under the Mandamus and Administrative Procedure Acts.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons stated herein, Defendants’ motion to dissolve the temporary restraining order is DENIED.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
For the reasons stated herein, Defendants’ motion to dissolve the temporary restraining order is DENIED.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants have moved to dissolve the temporary restraining order, issued ex parte.
Disposition Government's motion denied; the case goes on The government's motion (to dismiss, or for summary judgment) was denied, so the case goes on. Counted as the applicant's ruling; a later decision in the case can still go either way. Read by a model
For the reasons stated herein, Defendants’ motion to dissolve the temporary restraining order is DENIED.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
For the reasons stated herein, Defendants’ motion to dissolve the temporary restraining order is DENIED.
The delay claim Not decided here Read by a model
Plaintiffs have not moved for any further relief, and so the Court has not pre-determined whether any will be necessary or appropriate.
Months pending 16.1 months from the application to the suit; 17.9 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiffs are a family, two adults and one child, who submitted applications for T non-immigrant status (commonly known as “T visas”) in August 2024.
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. 1:25-cv-13911
Filed
December 19, 2025
Ended
March 16, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
87 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
voluntary dismissal 2026-03-13; 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 First 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.