Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of North Carolina

Gonzalez v. Jaddou

Eastern District of North CarolinaDecided December 15, 2021No. 7:18-cv-00135

Read the decision Original 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 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 The court of appeals remanded plaintiffs' claims alleging that the agency had unreasonably delayed in adjudicating their U-Visa petitions.
What the suit asked for	Decide the application Read by a model The court of appeals remanded plaintiffs' claims alleging that the agency had unreasonably delayed in adjudicating their U-Visa petitions.
Kind of order	An order on fees Read by a model Plaintiffs' consolidated motion and application for fees and expenses under the EAJA [DE 48] is DENIED.
Motion decided	Fees under EAJA Read by a model This consolidated action is before the Court on plaintiffs' consolidated motion and application for fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
Whose motion	The plaintiff's motion Read by a model This consolidated action is before the Court on plaintiffs' consolidated motion and application for fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
Disposition	Attorney's fees An order on attorney's fees or costs after the case, counted for the side that won the fee motion. Read by a model Plaintiffs' consolidated motion and application for fees and expenses under the EAJA [DE 48] is DENIED.
Prevailing party	Government Read by a model Plaintiffs' consolidated motion and application for fees and expenses under the EAJA [DE 48] is DENIED.
The delay claim	Not decided here Read by a model Plaintiffs' consolidated motion and application for fees and expenses under the EAJA [DE 48] is DENIED.
The other claims	Not decided here Read by a model Plaintiffs' consolidated motion and application for fees and expenses under the EAJA [DE 48] is DENIED.
Months pending	Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors	The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings	None Read by a model
U visa claims	Waiting list: not decided here Read by a model Following remand, plaintiffs did not object to the dismissal of the remaining claim on behalf of plaintiffs Gonzalez, Salguero, and Juarez as moot because these plaintiffs had been placed on the U Visa Waiting List and had received their employment authorization while the 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, this one. How decisions are grouped into cases.

Decision	Decided	Judge	Disposition
Gonzalez v. Cissna	March 6, 2019	Boyle	Dismissed
Gonzalez v. Jaddou	August 18, 2021		Dismissed as moot
Gonzalez v. JaddouThis decisionThe 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.