Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Indiana

KAUR ATIF v. NOEM

Southern District of IndianaTanya Walton PrattDecided February 11, 2026No. 4:25-cv-00056

Read the decision Original 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 On January 22, 2026, Defendants filed a Notice of Mootness stating that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services had adjudicated and issued Plaintiffs' petitions, and contending that this matter is now moot (Filing No. 20).
Form or filing	None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for	Decide the application Read by a model Plaintiffs Rupendra Kaur Arif and Muhammad Atif (together, "Plaintiffs") initiated this action to compel Defendants Kristi Noem and Andrew Davidson (together, "Defendants") to take action on Plaintiffs' immigration petitions (Filing No. 1).
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action as moot.
Motion decided	Other motion to dismiss Read by a model Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Filing No. 17) is likewise DENIED as moot.
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Filing No. 17) is likewise DENIED as moot.
Disposition	Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action as moot.
Prevailing party	Neither side Read by a model Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action as moot.
The delay claim	Moot: the agency acted Read by a model Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action as moot.
Months pending	Not stated at filing 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
TRAC factors	The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings	Held moot Read by a model Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action as moot.

How the case ended

Docket: No. 4:25-cv-00056
Filed: April 1, 2025
Ended: February 11, 2026
Suit's filing to its end: 316 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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.

Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55

Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Iddir v. INS, 301 F.3d 492

Seventh Circuit, August 6, 2002. INS had a nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate diversity-visa applications and § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) does not bar review of a failure to act, but no relief is available once the fiscal year ends.

ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Questioned by Akash Shahi v. United States Department of S, 33 F.4th 927 (2022).
Calderon-Ramirez v. McCament, 877 F.3d 272

Seventh Circuit, December 5, 2017. USCIS must process U-visa petitions within a reasonable time, but neither mandamus nor the APA offers relief to an applicant who shows nothing setting him apart from those ahead of him in the oldest-first queue.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 3 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-13; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
Pak v. Biden, 91 F.4th 896

Seventh Circuit, January 31, 2024. Consular nonreviewability bars a systemic challenge to how terrorism-related inadmissibility exemptions are considered, a matter the statute commits to the Secretaries' sole unreviewable discretion, and a statutory citation with a facial link to the record satisfies Mandel.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 2 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-13; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
Shahi v. United States Department of State, 33 F.4th 927

Seventh Circuit, May 6, 2022. Courts cannot order a diversity visa issued after the fiscal year ends whatever relief is requested, because the statute ends eligibility, and the Mandamus Act supplies a remedy rather than jurisdiction.

ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-10-29; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law. The citation index lists 10 other decisions citing it, none a Supreme Court, BIA or Attorney General precedent or a published circuit opinion; ImmCite's status does not review them.