Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia
Onaghise v. Department of Homeland Security
Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener
2,917 written decisions from 2,664 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 7:07 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 1,606 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,371 (85%), measured November 3, 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
After issuing a “Request for Evidence,” the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) denied Onaghise’s I-140 petition. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
I-140 (immigrant worker petition)
Read by a model
He filed a Form I-140 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (“I-140 petition”) requesting classification as an “alien with extraordinary ability.” |
| What the suit asked for | Not recorded Read by a model |
| Kind of order |
A transfer order
Read by a model
It is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall transfer this matter to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. |
| Motion decided |
Transfer
Read by a model
Defendants move to transfer this case to the Northern District of Texas. For the following reasons, the Court will grant the motion. |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
The Government now moves to transfer this case to the Northern District of Texas. |
| Disposition |
Transferred to another court
An order moving the case to another court. It decides where the suit is heard, not who wins, so it is not counted as either side's win.
Read by a model
It is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall transfer this matter to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. |
| Prevailing party |
Neither side
Read by a model
It is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall transfer this matter to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. |
| The other claims |
Not decided here
Read by a model
It is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall transfer this matter to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. |
| 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. 1:20-cv-01048
- Filed
- April 21, 2020
- Ended
- September 22, 2020
- Suit's filing to its end
- 154 days
- How it ended
- Transferred
- From the record
- idb disp 0 (transferred to another district)
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 D.C. 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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.
-
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55
Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Telecommunications Research & Action Center v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70
D.C. Circuit, October 24, 1984. Whether agency delay is unreasonable turns on six factors: a rule of reason, any statutory timetable, the human welfare interests at stake, the effect of expediting on competing priorities, the interests prejudiced by delay, and no need to find impropriety.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Council, Inc. v. Norton, 336 F.3d 1094
D.C. Circuit, August 8, 2003. A claim that an agency has unreasonably delayed a matter arises under the APA and § 1331, and the TRAC factors decide whether the delay is unreasonable.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
In re Core Communications, Inc., 531 F.3d 849
D.C. Circuit, July 8, 2008. Mandamus to compel unreasonably delayed agency action is an extraordinary remedy guided by the TRAC factors, granted here after years of unexplained delay.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Da Costa v. Immigration Investor Program Office, 80 F.4th 330
D.C. Circuit, August 18, 2023. EB-5 petition delays of roughly four years were not unreasonable under TRAC where USCIS adjudicates in a rule-of-reason order and expediting the plaintiffs would only move them ahead of others in the queue.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
American Hospital Ass'n v. Burwell, 812 F.3d 183
D.C. Circuit, February 9, 2016. A delay claim under the Mandamus Act requires a clear duty, a clear right and no adequate alternative remedy, and the TRAC factors then decide whether the delay warrants relief, with a statutory deadline weighing heavily.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Afghan and Iraqi Allies v. Blinken, 103 F.4th 807
D.C. Circuit, June 7, 2024. TRAC governs visa-processing delay claims in district court, a court that finds unreasonable delay may set adjudication deadlines, and expediting a whole class in queue order is not line-jumping.
ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-10-28; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law. The citation index lists 49 other decisions citing it, none a Supreme Court, BIA or Attorney General precedent or a published circuit opinion; ImmCite's status does not review them.