Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Muvvala v. Wolf

District of ColumbiaCarl J. NicholsDecided September 25, 2020No. 1:20-cv-02423

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,914 written decisions from 2,661 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 1:24 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
On September 17, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Mandatory Injunction, seeking equitable relief under the APA to compel USCIS to immediately adjudicate her application.
Form or filing I-539 (change or extension of stay); I-765 (EAD) Read by a model
In an effort to renew her H-4 and EAD status before their expiration, Muvvala filed an I- 539 application for extension of H-4 status and an I-765 application for extension of her EAD on May 19, 2020.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
to adjudicate Plaintiff Muvvala’s applications to extend her H-4 status and renew her Employment Authorization Document (“EAD”), which remain outstanding.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Mandatory Injunction is DENIED.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Mandatory Injunction is DENIED.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
On September 17, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Mandatory Injunction, seeking equitable relief under the APA to compel USCIS to immediately adjudicate her application.
Disposition Denied in the government's favor The principal motion was denied in full: a motion to dismiss denied so the case goes on, or relief denied on the merits. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Mandatory Injunction is DENIED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Mandatory Injunction is DENIED.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Mandatory Injunction is DENIED.
Months pending 3.4 months from the application to the suit; 4.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Muvvala filed an I- 539 application for extension of H-4 status and an I-765 application for extension of her EAD on May 19, 2020.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
Here, the first two TRAC factors weigh in the government’s favor.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
The time USCIS takes to adjudicate H-4 and EAD applications is governed by such a rule: USCIS adjudicates applications in the order they were filed, with a select few applications being expediated subject to criteria set forth by the agency.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:20-cv-02423
Filed
August 30, 2020
Ended
October 23, 2020
Suit's filing to its end
54 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 12 (dismissed: voluntarily)

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why.

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.