Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Kentucky

Prajapati v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Western District of KentuckyBenjamin BeatonDecided September 15, 2026No. 3:25-cv-00402

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
In 2025, he filed a complaint alleging that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services “unreasonably delayed” a determination on his petition, or alternatively “unlawfully with[held]” or “unreasonably delayed” a waiting-list determination.
Form or filing I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
who applied for a “U Nonimmigrant status” visa in 2024.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
In 2025, he filed a complaint alleging that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services “unreasonably delayed” a determination on his petition, or alternatively “unlawfully with[held]” or “unreasonably delayed” a waiting-list determination.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The Court therefore dismisses this case without prejudice for failure to prosecute and denies without prejudice as moot the USCIS’ motion to dismiss.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The court on its own Read by a model
But because the Court dismisses the case for Prajapati’s failure to prosecute, the Court need not resolve the USCIS’s motion.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
The Court therefore dismisses this case without prejudice for failure to prosecute and denies without prejudice as moot the USCIS’ motion to dismiss.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The Court therefore dismisses this case without prejudice for failure to prosecute
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The Court therefore dismisses this case without prejudice for failure to prosecute and denies without prejudice as moot the USCIS’ motion to dismiss.
Months pending 12 months from the application to the suit; 26.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
who applied for a “U Nonimmigrant status” visa in 2024.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
U visa claims Final decision: dismissed; Waiting list: dismissed Read by a model
The Court therefore dismisses this case without prejudice for failure to prosecute and denies without prejudice as moot the USCIS’ motion to dismiss.
Nationality India Read by a model
pro se plaintiff Priyank Prajapati is an Indian citizen living in Kentucky

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:25-cv-00402
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 16)
Filed
June 30, 2025
Ended
September 15, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
442 days
How it ended
Ended, outcome not recorded
From the record
terminated; no disposition recorded

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 Sixth 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.