Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Fatumata Diakite v. Mollie Isaacson

Eastern District of PennsylvaniaGerald J. PappertDecided July 29, 2026No. 2:26-cv-00898

Read the decisionOriginal on GovInfo

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 told the plaintiffs it could not process their applications because they were subject to expedited removal.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
The plaintiffs sued Isaacson, Edlow and Noem, seeking (among other things) a writ of mandamus directing the defendants to consider their affirmative-asylum applications.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
The plaintiffs sued Isaacson, Edlow and Noem, seeking (among other things) a writ of mandamus directing the defendants to consider their affirmative-asylum applications.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The defendants move to dismiss on the grounds that the Court lacks jurisdiction, and the Court grants their motion.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
The defendants counter that Congress has stripped federal courts of jurisdiction to adjudicate the plaintiffs’ claims. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The defendants move to dismiss on the grounds that the Court lacks jurisdiction, and the Court grants their motion.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
The defendants move to dismiss on the grounds that the Court lacks jurisdiction, and the Court grants their motion.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The defendants move to dismiss on the grounds that the Court lacks jurisdiction, and the Court grants their motion.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The defendants move to dismiss on the grounds that the Court lacks jurisdiction, and the Court grants their motion.
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. 2:26-cv-00898
Filed
February 11, 2026
Ended
July 29, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
168 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2026-07-29 dismisses for want of jurisdiction

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 Third 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.