Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of North Carolina

Osorio Henriquez v. Rogers

Eastern District of North CarolinaAnthony J TrengaDecided September 15, 2025No. 5:25-cv-00591

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 In Plaintiffs’ Opposition, they argue that they were never informed that their Form I-130 was transferred to USCIS’s Raleigh/Durham Field Office and were merely acting on the information they had available to them at the time they filed their Complaint.
Form or filing	I-130 (relative petition) Read by a model Plaintiff Osorio Henriquez’s Form I-130
What the suit asked for	Decide the application Read by a model In this action, Plaintiffs Josue Sandoval Barajas and Keydi Yosselin Osorio Henriquez seek to compel the adjudication of Plaintiff Osorio Henriquez’s Form I-130 pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act and Mandamus Act.
Kind of order	A transfer order Read by a model It is GRANTED to the extent that this action be, and the same hereby is, TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, and it is otherwise DENIED.
Motion decided	Other motion to dismiss; Transfer Read by a model Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Venue, or in the Alternative, Motion to Transfer Case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Venue, or in the Alternative, Motion to Transfer Case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina
Disposition	Transferred to another court An order moving the case to another court. It decides where the suit is heard, not who wins, so it is not counted as either side's win. Read by a model It is GRANTED to the extent that this action be, and the same hereby is, TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, and it is otherwise DENIED.
Prevailing party	Neither side Read by a model It is GRANTED to the extent that this action be, and the same hereby is, TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, and it is otherwise DENIED.
The delay claim	Not decided here Read by a model It is GRANTED to the extent that this action be, and the same hereby is, TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, and it is otherwise DENIED.
Months pending	Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors	The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings	None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket: No. 5:25-cv-00591
Filed: September 15, 2025
Ended: February 9, 2026
Suit's filing to its end: 147 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 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.

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
Gonzalez v. Cuccinelli, 985 F.3d 357

Fourth Circuit, January 14, 2021. Courts may review delay in placing U-visa petitioners on the waitlist under the TRAC factors and should not dismiss such claims at the pleading stage, but lack jurisdiction over delay in pre-waitlist work-permit requests, a point on which the Sixth Circuit disagrees.

ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Rejected in the Sixth Circuit by Barrios Garcia v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 25 F.4th 430 (2022).
Lovo v. Miller, 107 F.4th 199

Fourth Circuit, July 3, 2024. The 'decision or action' language of § 1182(a)(9)(B)(v), which the court treated as coextensive with § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), does not reach USCIS inaction, so a district court may hear a claim that USCIS unreasonably delayed a provisional unlawful-presence waiver.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 5 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-07; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.