Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Illinois

Chaudhari v. Mayorkas

Northern District of IllinoisJoan Humphrey LefkowDecided February 5, 2026No. 1:25-cv-01908

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
But USCIS has begun the process of adjudication by issuing him the admittedly prerequisite biometrics appointment notice.
Form or filing I-918 (U visa); I-918A Read by a model
Mr. Chaudhari’s Form I-918 Petition for U Nonimmigration Status (U-visa) and his family’s derivative Form I-918A petitions
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Armin requests that USCIS adjudicate his U-visa petition by performing the BFD Process, issuing him EAD, and granting him deferred action.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss (dkt. 6) plaintiffs Jayeshkumar Ambalal Chaudhari, Vinaben Jayeshkumar Chaudhari, and Armin Jayeshkumar Chaudhari’s complaint (dkt. 1) is granted with prejudice.
Motion decided Other motion to dismiss Read by a model
Because the case is moot as to all plaintiffs and their claims, defendants’ motion is granted and the complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss (dkt. 6)
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
Because the case is moot as to all plaintiffs and their claims, defendants’ motion is granted and the complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
Because the case is moot as to all plaintiffs and their claims, defendants’ motion is granted and the complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Defendants make several additional arguments supporting their motion to dismiss, but the court does not reach them, as it agrees the claims are moot as to all plaintiffs.
The other claims Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Defendants make several additional arguments supporting their motion to dismiss, but the court does not reach them, as it agrees the claims are moot as to all plaintiffs.
Months pending 18.6 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
The court takes judicial notice of USCIS’s letter of May 7, 2025, addressed to Armin’s attorney containing this information, attached as an exhibit to defendants’ reply.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Defendants make several additional arguments supporting their motion to dismiss, but the court does not reach them, as it agrees the claims are moot as to all plaintiffs.
U visa claims Bona fide determination: moot: the agency acted; Work permit: moot: the agency acted; Waiting list: moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Defendants make several additional arguments supporting their motion to dismiss, but the court does not reach them, as it agrees the claims are moot as to all plaintiffs.
Nationality India Read by a model
The Chaudharis are citizens of India.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-01908
Filed
February 24, 2025
Ended
February 5, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
346 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 17 (judgment: other), 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.

Supreme Court and Seventh 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.