Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

HUANG v. USCIS IMMIGRATION INVESTOR PROGRAM OFFICE

District of ColumbiaRoyce C. LamberthDecided October 15, 2026No. 1:26-cv-01627

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
Plaintiff now brings suit under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), id. {] 10-13, seeking an order directing USCIS to adjudicate Plaintiff’s application within thirty days, id. at 3 (Prayer for Relief).
Form or filing I-526E (investor petition) Read by a model
Plaintiff Shuowen Huang is a New Jersey resident who filed an I-526E petition with Defendant USCIS Regional Investor Center in May 2024.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiff now brings suit under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), id. {] 10-13, seeking an order directing USCIS to adjudicate Plaintiff’s application within thirty days, id. at 3 (Prayer for Relief).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons stated herein, the Court will dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(b) and Federal Rule 12(b)(6).
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendant has moved to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendant has moved to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules 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 reasons stated herein, the Court will dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(b) and Federal Rule 12(b)(6).
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The Court therefore grants Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss as conceded pursuant to Local Rule 7(b).
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
In sum, the Plaintiffhas not stated a claim for unreasonable delay, and his Complaint must be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule 12(b)(6).
Months pending 24 months from the application to the suit; 29 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff Shuowen Huang is a New Jersey resident who filed an I-526E petition with Defendant USCIS Regional Investor Center in May 2024.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the applicant
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety neededfavors the government
Read by a model
Accordingly, this factor favors USCIS.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
the Court has no trouble concluding that “USCIS employs a rule of reason to adjudicate Form 1-526E petitions.”
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court determines that it has subject-matter jurisdiction over the dispute.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:26-cv-01627
Filed
May 12, 2026
Status
Pending as of the last docket check

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 D.C. 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.