Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Liu v. Wolf

District of ColumbiaChristopher R. CooperDecided May 25, 2021No. 1:20-cv-00654

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
Six investors allege that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) has intentionally slowed its processing of petitions by EB-5 hopefuls.
Form or filing I-526 (investor petition) Read by a model
Between November 2015 and December 2018, each plaintiff filed a Form I-526 Immigrant Petition.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
The Complaint seeks to compel USCIS to adjudicate their I-526 petitions within 30 days.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will deny Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss as to Mr. Thakrar and grant the Motion as to all other plaintiffs.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
The government has moved to dismiss the Complaint, arguing that Thakrar fails to state a plausible claim for unreasonable delay and that the other plaintiffs’ claims are moot.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The government has moved to dismiss the Complaint, arguing that Thakrar fails to state a plausible claim for unreasonable delay and that the other plaintiffs’ claims are moot.
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will deny Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss as to Mr. Thakrar and grant the Motion as to all other plaintiffs.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will deny Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss as to Mr. Thakrar and grant the Motion as to all other plaintiffs.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will deny Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss as to Mr. Thakrar and grant the Motion as to all other plaintiffs.
Months pending 14.8 months from the application to the suit 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
The sole plaintiff whose petition has not been adjudicated is Mr. Thakrar, a citizen of India who filed his petition on December 21, 2018.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the applicant
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the applicant
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesneutral
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
Thus, the first TRAC factor weighs strongly against dismissal.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing rejected; Line-jumping found neutral Read by a model
Even if USCIS’s ordering system is perfectly rational, the agency could still be liable if it adjudicates each petition at an unjustifiably slow pace, resulting in unreasonably long overall wait times.
Threshold rulings Held moot; Mootness argument rejected Read by a model
The Court will therefore dismiss these plaintiffs’ claims as moot.
Nationality India Read by a model
The sole plaintiff whose petition has not been adjudicated is Mr. Thakrar, a citizen of India who filed his petition on December 21, 2018.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:20-cv-00654
Filed
March 5, 2020
Ended
June 14, 2022
Suit's filing to its end
831 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. 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.