Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Mokkapati v. Mayorkas

District of ColumbiaBeryl A. HowellDecided July 19, 2022No. 1:21-cv-01195

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 Mokkapati and Gullapalli filed their I-526 petitions with USCIS, on July 18, 2019 and November 7, 2019, respectively, seeking classification as EB-5 immigrants through the Regional Center Program.
Form or filing I-526 (investor petition) Read by a model
Plaintiffs Mokkapati and Gullapalli filed their I-526 petitions with USCIS
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
seeking a writ of mandamus and order “compelling USCIS to adjudicate [plaintiffs’] I-526 Petitions forthwith”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons given, defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants’ remaining motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) is now ripe for resolution.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants now move to dismiss the complaint, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), for failure to state a plausible claim that any alleged delay is “unreasonable as a matter of law.”
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the reasons given, defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons given, defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the reasons given, defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.
Months pending 21.5 months from the application to the suit; 36 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiffs Mokkapati and Gullapalli filed their I-526 petitions with USCIS, on July 18, 2019 and November 7, 2019, respectively, seeking classification as EB-5 immigrants through the Regional Center Program.
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
The first and second TRAC factors, on balance, weigh firmly in favor of defendants.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
this agency’s petition adjudication process is governed by a recognized rule of reason: “the visa availability approach.”
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality India Read by a model
Plaintiffs Aditya Mokkapati and Chaitanya Prasad Gullapalli, both citizens of India

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:21-cv-01195
Filed
May 3, 2021
Ended
July 19, 2022
Suit's filing to its end
442 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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.