Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Michigan

Yslas v. Department of Homeland Security, Secretary of

Eastern District of MichiganLaurie Jill MichelsonDecided November 10, 2026No. 2:26-cv-11752

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,948 written decisions from 2,691 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided November 10, 2026. Updated November 11, 2026 at 1:21 p.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 1,632 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,398 (86%), measured November 11, 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
Desperate to move things along, Yslas filed this lawsuit, claiming USCIS’ delay in processing her I-130 petition violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and seeking a writ of mandamus compelling USCIS to fast-track its review of that petition.
Form or filing I-130 (relative petition) Read by a model
Yslas filed this lawsuit, claiming USCIS’ delay in processing her I-130 petition violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Desperate to move things along, Yslas filed this lawsuit, claiming USCIS’ delay in processing her I-130 petition violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and seeking a writ of mandamus compelling USCIS to fast-track its review of that petition.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS [12]
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction and for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction and for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Accordingly, the government’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED and Yslas’s complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice and with leave to amend because the critical factors cannot be balanced conclusively absent more fulsome briefing.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Accordingly, the government’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED and Yslas’s complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice and with leave to amend because the critical factors cannot be balanced conclusively absent more fulsome briefing.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, the government’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED and Yslas’s complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice and with leave to amend because the critical factors cannot be balanced conclusively absent more fulsome briefing.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Likewise, Yslas’ APA, declaratory relief, and EAJA attorney’s fees claims are dismissed without prejudice to re-filing in an amended complaint, which shall be filed within 14 days from entry of this order.
Months pending 12.1 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
on November 6, 2025, Yslas filed an I-130 petition to have Herrera-Paredes classified as her “immediate relative,”
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfareneutral
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedneutral
  • 6. No impropriety neededfavors the government
Read by a model
Based on Yslas’ current complaint, factors one, two, four, and six favor Defendants, while factors three and five are neutral.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Accordingly, on the basis of the current petition, the first TRAC factor favors the government.
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
The Court need not decide this issue for purposes of the mandamus analysis, because the third factor—whether Yslas has an adequate remedy aside from mandamus—is dispositive.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Yslas filed an I-130 petition to have Herrera-Paredes classified as her “immediate relative,”

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:26-cv-11752
Filed
May 29, 2026
Status
Pending as of the last docket check

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 Sixth 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 11, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.