Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Vermont

Kondapalli v. Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

District of VermontGeoffrey W. CrawfordDecided October 3, 2025No. 2:25-cv-00289

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,917 written decisions from 2,664 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 7:07 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
Having already granted Ms. Kondapalli parole on account of her placement on the U visa waitlist, USCIS is not now required to grant her parole again.
Form or filing I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
As a member of the waitlist, Ms. Kondapalli is the beneficiary of a decision by USCIS that her application for a U visa is meritorious.
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
She is currently in India and seeks parole—permission to enter and remain in the United States—while her application is pending.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendant’s Second Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9) is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendant seeks dismissal on two grounds: that this court lacks jurisdiction to review Plaintiff's claim and that Plaintiff has failed to state a plausible claim for relief. The court addresses these arguments in turn.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Currently pending is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint (Doc. 9)
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Defendant’s Second Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9) is GRANTED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Defendant’s Second Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9) is GRANTED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Defendant’s Second Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9) is GRANTED.
Months pending 93 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
on January 3, 2018, filed an application for a U visa.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model
Section 1252’s title is further evidence that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) does not bar review of decisions related to parole outside of the context of removal proceedings. Judicial review is not barred in this case.
U visa claims Other U visa claim: dismissed Read by a model
Having already granted Ms. Kondapalli parole on account of her placement on the U visa waitlist, USCIS is not now required to grant her parole again.
Nationality India Read by a model
Ms. Kondapalli is a citizen and national of India

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:25-cv-00289
Filed
March 6, 2025
Ended
October 6, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
214 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), 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 Second 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.