Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Thakker v. Cuccinelli

District of ColumbiaColleen Kollar-KotellyDecided March 22, 2021

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
Plaintiffs seek an order compelling USCIS to adjudicate their petitions and declaring the Government’s delay “unreasonable.”
Form or filing I-526 (investor petition) Read by a model
Plaintiffs each filed a Form I-526 with USCIS before October 1, 2019.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs seek an order compelling USCIS to adjudicate their petitions and declaring the Government’s delay “unreasonable.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The Court shall grant the Government’s motion to dismiss and shall dismiss the Amended Complaint without prejudice as to those three Plaintiffs.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
The Government moves to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that it fails state a claim of unreasonable dela y under the APA.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is the Government’s [8] Motion to Dismiss
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
The Court shall grant the Government’s motion to dismiss and shall dismiss the Amended Complaint without prejudice as to those three Plaintiffs.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The Court shall grant the Government’s motion to dismiss and shall dismiss the Amended Complaint without prejudice as to those three Plaintiffs.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the claims of the nine Plaintiffs whose Forms I-526 petitions have been adjudicated are moot and shall be dismissed. As to the remaining three Plaintiffs, the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim for unreasonable delay under the APA.
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 weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the applicant
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
The first TRAC factor—the time agencies take to make decisions must be governed by a “rule of reason”— weighs in favor of the Government .
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
And even when “Regional Center” petitions receive priority status, they still go through a “first in, first out” process.
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
The Court finds that the Amended Complaint’s claims as to these Plaintiffs are now moot, as the Government has granted the remed y Plaintiffs request (adjudication of their petitions).
Nationality India Read by a model
Plaintiffs Neha Bhatia, Smiral Shah, and Darshan Rameshchandra Kadia are Indian nationals

How the case ended

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

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.