Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Defender Services, Inc. v. Mayorkas

District of ColumbiaRudolph ContrerasDecided March 29, 2022No. 1:21-cv-01314

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 May 12, 2021, Plaintiff filed this action arguing that over nine months had elapsed since the USCIS vacated its denial of Plaintiff’s motions to reopen and reconsider, which Plaintiff had filed over two years ago, and that the USCIS had failed to render a decision on Plaintiff’s motions.
Form or filing I-140 (immigrant worker petition) Read by a model
In 2016, Plaintiff filed two Form I-140 Immigrant Petitions for Alien Worker (“Petitions”) with the USCIS on behalf of Shing Chi Chu and Man Oi Yan, two prospective employees of Plaintiff’s.
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendants to adjudicate Plaintiff’s motions to reopen and reconsider USCIS’s revocation of immigrant visa petitions filed by Plaintiff on behalf of two prospective employees.
Kind of order A transfer order Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to transfer the case to the District of South Carolina is GRANTED and their motion to dismiss is DENIED (ECF No. 7).
Motion decided Other motion to dismiss; Transfer Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to transfer the case to the District of South Carolina is GRANTED and their motion to dismiss is DENIED (ECF No. 7).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants have moved to transfer this action to the District of South Carolina and alternatively to dismiss this case for improper venue
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
Defendants’ motion to transfer the case to the District of South Carolina is GRANTED and their motion to dismiss is DENIED (ECF No. 7).
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to transfer the case to the District of South Carolina is GRANTED and their motion to dismiss is DENIED (ECF No. 7).
The delay claim Not decided here Read by a model
Because the Court will transfer this case to the Transferee District, it need not address Defendants’ alternative motion to dismiss.
Months pending 68.9 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
In 2016, Plaintiff filed two Form I-140 Immigrant Petitions for Alien Worker (“Petitions”) with the USCIS on behalf of Shing Chi Chu and Man Oi Yan, two prospective employees of Plaintiff’s.
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. 1:21-cv-01314
Filed
May 12, 2021
Ended
April 8, 2022
Suit's filing to its end
331 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.