Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Georgia

Prajapati v. Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Northern District of GeorgiaMark H. CohenDecided June 16, 2026No. 1:25-cv-03935

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
The crux of Plaintiffs Complaint is that USCIS has not issued any decision on his application, nor has it placed him on the waitlist.
Form or filing I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
On January 31, 2025, Plaintiff filed a complete and signed I-918 Petition for U Nonimmigrant status, as well as a Form I-765 application for authorization.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Immigration Services ("USCIS") to (1) issue a bona fide determination on his U Visa application "within 14 days," or, in the alternative, (2) compel USCIS to "make a wait list decision for Plaintiff within 30 days."
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 6 at 1-2] is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
This case comes before the Court on Defendant's unopposed Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint ("Mot. to Dismiss") [Doc. 6 at 1-2].
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
This case comes before the Court on Defendant's unopposed Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint ("Mot. to Dismiss") [Doc. 6 at 1-2].
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 6 at 1-2] is GRANTED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 6 at 1-2] is GRANTED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 6 at 1-2] is GRANTED.
Months pending 5.4 months from the application to the suit; 16.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On January 31, 2025, Plaintiff filed a complete and signed I-918 Petition for U Nonimmigrant status, as well as a Form I-765 application for authorization.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetableneutral
  • 3. Human health and welfareneutral
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedneutral
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
Accordingly, this factor favors Defendant.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Courts considering this policy, including courts in this district, have found routinely found that the "USCIS's process of 'first in, first out' to be a rule of reason."
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
U visa claims Bona fide determination: dismissed; Waiting list: dismissed Read by a model
The Court is without jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs AP A claims in this case because the action Plaintiff seeks to compel-the issuance of a bona fide determination "within 14 days"-is a matter left to governmental discretion.
Nationality India Read by a model
Plaintiff Vishal Praj apati is a citizen of India residing in Griffin, Georgia.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-03935
Filed
July 15, 2025
Ended
June 16, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
336 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.

Supreme Court and Eleventh 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.