Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Virginia

Patel v. Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

Eastern District of VirginiaDavid J. NovakDecided October 15, 2025No. 3:25-cv-00404

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
USCIS has not yet published a decision on Plaintiffs various applications.
Form or filing I-765 (EAD); I-918 (U visa); I-918A Read by a model
Plaintiff filed a Form 1-918 Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status (“U-Visa Petition”)
What the suit asked for Issue a work permit Read by a model
He requests that this Court compel Defendant USCIS to provide him with “bona fide determinations and decisions on the pending work authorization applications within 14 days.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons set forth below, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 7).
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Accordingly, since it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs APA claim, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 7).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 7) and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICIi Plaintiffs Complaint (ECF No, 1).
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 7) and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICIi Plaintiffs Complaint (ECF No, 1).
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 7) and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICIi Plaintiffs Complaint (ECF No, 1).
Months pending 5.1 months from the application to the suit; 9.7 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
on December 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Form 1-918 Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
U visa claims Bona fide determination: dismissed; Work permit: dismissed Read by a model
In sum, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff s APA claim, because USCIS’s actions at this stage of his U-visa application arc entirely discretionary.^ Plaintiff s APA claim must therefore be dismissed.
Nationality India Read by a model
Plaintiff is a citizen of India

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:25-cv-00404
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 11)
Filed
May 27, 2025
Ended
October 15, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
141 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 3 (dismissed: lack 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.

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 Fourth 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.