Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of North Carolina

Gonzalez v. Jaddou

Eastern District of North CarolinaDecided August 18, 2021No. 7:18-cv-00135

Read the decision Original 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 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d), the Court has substituted the current Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services as the proper party-defendant.
Form or filing	I-918 (U visa) Read by a model Specifically, only plaintiffs' claims that defendants unreasonably delayed in adjudicating their U Visa Waiting List determination have been remanded for further proceedings.
What the suit asked for	Decide the application Read by a model Specifically, only plaintiffs' claims that defendants unreasonably delayed in adjudicating their U Visa Waiting List determination have been remanded for further proceedings.
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, defendants ' motion to dismiss in part and hold in abeyance in part [DE 40] is GRANTED.
Motion decided	Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model defendants ' motion to dismiss in part and hold in abeyance in part [DE 40] is GRANTED.
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model This matter is before the Court on defendants ' motion to dismiss in part and hold in abeyance in part
Disposition	Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model The claims of plaintiffs Gonzalez, Salguero, and Juarez are DISMISSED AS MOOT.
Prevailing party	Government Read by a model The sixty-day stay requested by defendants is reasonable and the Court discerns no appreciable prejudice to the remaining plaintiffs by a stay of this period.
The delay claim	Moot: the agency acted Read by a model The claims of plaintiffs Gonzalez, Salguero, and Juarez are DISMISSED AS MOOT.
Months pending	Not stated at filing The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
TRAC factors	The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings	Held moot Read by a model As these plaintiffs agree that their remaining claim is moot, the Court grants defendants ' motion to dismiss these cases.
U visa claims	Waiting list: moot: the agency acted Read by a model Defendants contend that this claim is now moot for three plaintiffs, Gonzalez, Salguero, and Juarez, based upon their placement on the U Visa Waiting List and their receipt of employment authorization while this case was pending on appeal.

Other orders in this case

The group holds 3 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision. How decisions are grouped into cases.

Decision	Decided	Judge	Disposition
Gonzalez v. Cissna	March 6, 2019	Boyle	Dismissed
Gonzalez v. JaddouThis decision	August 18, 2021		Dismissed as moot
Gonzalez v. JaddouThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted	December 15, 2021		Attorney's fees

How the case ended

Docket: No. 7:18-cv-00135
Filed: July 27, 2018
Ended: September 20, 2021
Suit's filing to its end: 152 days
How it ended: Ended once the agency acted
From the record: idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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 3, 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 2026-10-29; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.