Passim

Mandamus decisions / Middle District of Tennessee

Chaudhari v. Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

Middle District of TennesseeEli J. RichardsonDecided October 21, 2026No. 3:25-cv-00629

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
Plaintiff seeks relief under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) to direct the USCIS to make a BFD on the U Visa and EAD applications.
Form or filing I-765 (EAD); I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
Nonimmigrant Status (“U Visa”) and a Form I-765 request for work authorization status for himself and derivative applications for qualifying family members.
What the suit asked for Issue a work permit Read by a model
Plaintiff seeks relief under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) to direct the USCIS to make a BFD on the U Visa and EAD applications.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion (Doc. No. 10) is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED pursuant specifically to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
The Court adopts the R&R’s implicit recommendation that the dismissal be for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
the motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 10, “Motion”) filed by Defendant
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion (Doc. No. 10) is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED pursuant specifically to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion (Doc. No. 10) is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED pursuant specifically to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion (Doc. No. 10) is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED pursuant specifically to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Months pending 5.7 months from the application to the suit; 22.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
on December 2024, he filed a I-918 petition
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
Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion (Doc. No. 10) is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED pursuant specifically to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Nationality India Read by a model
Himani Chaudhari (“Plaintiff”) is [a] citizen of India

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:25-cv-00629
Filed
June 6, 2025
Ended
October 21, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
502 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2026-10-21 dismisses for want 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 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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.