Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Missouri

Tokas v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services et al

Eastern District of MissouriSarah E. PitlykDecided April 24, 2026No. 4:25-cv-01754

Read the decisionOriginal on GovInfo

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 filed suit seeking an Order compelling the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to adjudicate his immigration petition “within a reasonable time set by the Court.”
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiff filed suit seeking an Order compelling the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to adjudicate his immigration petition “within a reasonable time set by the Court.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment.
Disposition Granted in the applicant's favor The principal motion was granted in full: summary judgment for either side, an injunction or TRO, a writ or order to act, fees. A motion to dismiss granted in full counts as Dismissed; a transfer is listed apart. Read by a model
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. Doc. [7]. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. Doc. [7]. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint shall be amended to be without prejudice.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied Read by a model
Though 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) asserts that “no court shall have jurisdiction to review” the denial of discretionary relief at issue here,

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision, this one. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
Tokas v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services December 6, 2025 Sarah E. Pitlyk Dismissed
Tokas v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services et alThis decisionThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted April 24, 2026 Sarah E. Pitlyk Granted in the applicant's favor

How the case ended

Docket
No. 4:25-cv-01754
Filed
December 2, 2025
Ended
December 6, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
4 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 Eighth 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.