Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Pennsylvania

KAZIMI v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Western District of PennsylvaniaSusan Paradise BaxterDecided June 16, 2025No. 1:24-cv-00340

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
Under § 2502 of the Extending Government Funding and Delivering Emergency Assistance Act (the “Emergency Assistance Act”), in the absence of “exceptional circumstances,” the USCIS must adjudicate the asylum applications filed by Afghan nationals within 150 days.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
A year after entering the U.S., Mr. Kazimi submitted his I-589 application for asylum under § 241(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act because he fears that he will be persecuted by the Taliban due to (1) his political opinion and (2) his membership in a particular social group.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
The following day, Kazimi, a parolee under the Operation Allies Welcome (“OAW”) program, filed a preliminary injunction motion seeking to compel the asylum application decision within ninety days.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The Report and Recommendation is adopted as to its conclusions peeeraine subject matter jurisdiction, collateral estoppel, and mootness.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The court on its own Read by a model
Presently before this Court is a Report and Recommendation, along with Objections thereto, addressing an implicit jurisdictional issue raised sua sponte by the undersigned.
Disposition Denied in the applicant's favor The principal motion was denied in full: relief the plaintiff asked for denied on the merits, such as summary judgment, an injunction or fees. The government's motion denied so the case goes on is listed apart. Read by a model
However, this Court declines to stay this case.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
Accordingly, this case should proceed.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Accordingly, this case should proceed.
Months pending 27.6 months from the application to the suit; 33.7 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
According to his verified complaint, Kazimi’s application was filed on August 26, 2022.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Mootness argument rejected Read by a model
Judge Lanzillo further reported that Kazimi’s claims are not moot.
Nationality Afghanistan Read by a model
Mr. Kazimi is a citizen of Afghanistan

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-00340
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 49)
Filed
December 12, 2024
Ended
July 22, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
222 days
How it ended
Transferred
From the record
transfer order 2025-07-22

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 Third 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.