Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Minnesota

M.Q. v. Mullin

District of MinnesotaLaura M. ProvinzinoDecided June 18, 2026No. 0:26-cv-00879

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

3,016 written decisions from 2,750 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided November 13, 2026. Updated November 14, 2026 at 3:54 p.m. CT. Of the 1,617 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,406 (87%), 1,039 of them in this group, measured November 14, 2026. 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 instead.

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
The complaint is based, in part, on a policy implemented by Defendant United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) in late 2025 to hold adjudication of all pending asylum applications.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
M. Q. seeks an order compelling the Government to adjudicate her pending asylum application.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
M. Q. seeks an order compelling the Government to adjudicate her pending asylum application.
Kind of order A stipulated or agreed order Read by a model
The Court appreciates the parties’ cooperation, and, based on their agreement, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
Motion decided Other motion to dismiss Read by a model
The Government’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 14) is DENIED as moot;
Whose motion A joint request Read by a model
The parties promptly met and conferred and informed the Court by email that they have agreed: (1) that the hearing should be delayed;
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
The Court appreciates the parties’ cooperation, and, based on their agreement, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
The Court appreciates the parties’ cooperation, and, based on their agreement, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
The delay claim Not decided here Read by a model
The Government shall file a renewed motion to dismiss by July 27, 2026;
The other claims Not decided here Read by a model
M. Q. shall submit a second amended complaint by July 13, 2026;
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

How the case ended

Docket
No. 0:26-cv-00879
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 32)
Filed
January 30, 2026
Ended
August 13, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
195 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
Voluntary dismissal of August 13, 2026

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. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

Supreme Court and Eighth 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.