Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of South Carolina

Jafarishad v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

District of South CarolinaJoseph Dawson IIIDecided November 7, 2025No. 4:25-cv-07076

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
Plaintiffs sought to compel the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to adjudicate their respective Form I-485 applications for adjustment of status.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
Plaintiffs sought to compel the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to adjudicate their respective Form I-485 applications for adjustment of status.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs sought to compel the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to adjudicate their respective Form I-485 applications for adjustment of status.
Kind of order A stipulated or agreed order Read by a model
Defendants concur in Plaintiffs’ request.
Motion decided Other motion to dismiss Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss (DE 30) is GRANTED
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
On November 3, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Dismiss (DE 30)
Disposition Stipulated or agreed order An order the parties asked for together, or the plaintiff's own dismissal. Not counted as either side's win. Read by a model
Defendants concur in Plaintiffs’ request.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
Defendants concur in Plaintiffs’ request.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
In light of the parties’ representations and the approval of Plaintiffs’ applications, the Court finds that the issues presented in this case are 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
In light of the parties’ representations and the approval of Plaintiffs’ applications, the Court finds that the issues presented in this case are moot.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 4:25-cv-07076
Filed
July 11, 2025
Ended
November 7, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
119 days
How it ended
Judgment for the plaintiff
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for plaintiff

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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.