Passim

Mandamus decisions / Middle District of North Carolina

CHAUDHARI v. JADDOU

Middle District of North CarolinaThomas D. SchroederDecided February 12, 2026

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
However, Defendants have provided a copy of Ms. Chaudhari’s Bona Fide Determination Notice, which demonstrates that USCIS approved her I-918A petition in July 2025.
Form or filing I-765 (EAD); I-918A Read by a model
Ms. Chaudhari’s pending I-918A, Petition for Qualifying Family Member of U-1 Recipient, and I-765, Application for Employment Authorization.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ claim seeking to compel Defendants to adjudicate Ms. Chaudhari’s applications is now moot, and Defendants’ motion to dismiss will be granted.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants Edlow and Bishop’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 7) is GRANTED
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
In December 2025, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
In December 2025, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ claim seeking to compel Defendants to adjudicate Ms. Chaudhari’s applications is now moot, and Defendants’ motion to dismiss will be granted.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ claim seeking to compel Defendants to adjudicate Ms. Chaudhari’s applications is now moot, and Defendants’ motion to dismiss will be granted.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ claim seeking to compel Defendants to adjudicate Ms. Chaudhari’s applications is now moot, and Defendants’ motion to dismiss will be granted.
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
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ claim seeking to compel Defendants to adjudicate Ms. Chaudhari’s applications is now moot, and Defendants’ motion to dismiss will be granted.
U visa claims Bona fide determination: moot: the agency acted; Work permit: moot: the agency acted; Waiting list: moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ claim seeking to compel Defendants to adjudicate Ms. Chaudhari’s applications is now moot, and Defendants’ motion to dismiss will be granted.

How the case ended

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

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.