Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Georgia

Lafua v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)

Northern District of GeorgiaWilliam M. Ray IIDecided July 23, 2026No. 1:25-cv-07104

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
Plaintiff further alleges that, though he has completed all necessary prerequisites for the adjudication of his I-485 Application, USCIS has not rendered a decision.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
Plaintiff further alleges that, though he has completed all necessary prerequisites for the adjudication of his I-485 Application, USCIS has not rendered a decision.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Here, the Court is without subject matter jurisdiction to compel USCIS to adjudicate Plaintiff’s claims.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 15] is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s claim is DISMISSED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Here, the Court is without subject matter jurisdiction to compel USCIS to adjudicate Plaintiff’s claims.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
This matter is before the Court on Defendant United States Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (hereinafter, “USCIS”) Motion to Dismiss.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 15] is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s claim is DISMISSED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 15] is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s claim is DISMISSED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 15] is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s claim is DISMISSED.
Months pending 8.5 months from the application to the suit; 15.8 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Permanent Residence or Adjust Status” (hereinafter, the “I-485 Application”) on March 28, 2025.
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
As such, the claims do not lie within the Court’s limited jurisdiction and therefore cannot be heard.
Nationality Nigeria Read by a model
Plaintiff Oluwafemi Sunny Lafua, a citizen of Nigeria,

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-07104
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 19), deciding the motion (ECF 15)
Filed
December 12, 2025
Ended
July 23, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
223 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
judgment 2026-07-24 for the defendants, ground not stated

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, and the motion number is read from that entry's text. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

Supreme Court and Eleventh 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.