Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Mukherjee v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

District of ColumbiaChristopher R. CooperDecided June 24, 2020No. 1:20-cv-00676

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
Plaintiffs are fifty-three individuals who have applied to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to extend their nonimmigrant statuses and/or work authorizations.
Form or filing I-539 (change or extension of stay); I-765 (EAD) Read by a model
One plaintiff, Saranya Chandrasekaran, has an application pending at both the Texas Service Center (I-539) and the Vermont Service Center (I-765).
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
They claim that USCIS has unreasonably delayed the adjudication of their applications and that the delay constitutes arbitrary and capricious agency action in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the Court will grant USCIS’s motion to dismiss as moot the claims of plaintiffs whose visa or work authorization applications have been adjudicated as of the date of this opinion.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Transfer Read by a model
the Court will grant USCIS’s motion to dismiss as moot the claims of plaintiffs whose visa or work authorization applications have been adjudicated as of the date of this opinion. The Court will then transfer the remaining seven plaintiffs’ claims to the Northern District of Texas.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
the Court will grant USCIS’s motion to dismiss as moot the claims of plaintiffs whose visa or work authorization applications have been adjudicated as of the date of this opinion.
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
Relying on evidence submitted by USCIS, the Court finds that the claims of 46 plaintiffs are moot and will dismiss those claims.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The Court will grant USCIS’s motion to transfer these plaintiffs’ claims to that district for the same reasons it transferred the live claims in Pasem.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Relying on evidence submitted by USCIS, the Court finds that the claims of 46 plaintiffs are moot and will dismiss those claims.
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
Relying on evidence submitted by USCIS, the Court finds that the claims of 46 plaintiffs are moot and will dismiss those claims.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:20-cv-00676
Filed
March 6, 2020
Ended
June 25, 2020
Suit's filing to its end
111 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.