Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of New Jersey

PATEL v. DIRECTOR, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES

District of New JerseyEdward S. KielDecided June 3, 2026No. 1:25-cv-13467

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
Nothing in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) or accompanying regulations requires USCIS to issue a waitlist determination within a specific time.
Form or filing I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
On July 24, 2024, plaintiff Krish Patel filed a complete I-918, petition for U nonimmigrant status (U visa).
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
by failing to make a BFD of Patel’s U visa petition within a reasonable time, and by withholding or delaying its decision on Patel’s eligibility for the U visa waitlist.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
1. The unopposed Motion (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
On November 12, 2025, USCIS filed the Motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (Rule) 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
defendant Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (USCIS) motion to dismiss (Motion)
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
2. The Complaint (ECF No. 1) is dismissed.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Because two Oil factors favor the USCIS and the other two are neutral, Patel fails to state a plausible APA claim based on an unreasonably delayed of the U visa wait list decision. Accordingly, the Third Cause of Action will be dismissed.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
2. The Complaint (ECF No. 1) is dismissed.
Months pending 11.8 months from the application to the suit The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
On July 24, 2024, plaintiff Krish Patel filed a complete I-918, petition for U nonimmigrant status (U visa).
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Further, I cannot “compel agency action where the result would be merely to expedite the consideration of a plaintiff’s request ahead of others.”
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Because USCIS has already addressed Patel’s BFD claim, the court cannot “grant [Patel’s] requested relief,” and the First Cause of Action will be dismissed as moot.
U visa claims Bona fide determination: moot: the agency acted; Waiting list: dismissed Read by a model
the court cannot “grant [Patel’s] requested relief,” and the First Cause of Action will be dismissed as moot.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-13467
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 16)
Filed
July 17, 2025
Ended
June 3, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
321 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why. Other suits in this court.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.