Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Kang v. Department of Homeland Security

District of ColumbiaRichard J. LeonDecided September 23, 2022No. 1:21-cv-02944

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
Because USCIS has adjudicated plaintiffs’ applications, the dispute
Form or filing I-765 (EAD) Read by a model
applications for employment authorization documents (“EADs”)
What the suit asked for Issue a work permit Read by a model
compelling “[d]efendants to immediately adjudicate [p]laintiffs’ [employment authorization] applications without further delay”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. #8] is hereby GRANTED and this case shall be DISMISSED for lack of subject -matter jurisdiction.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Because Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. #8] is GRANTED and plaintiff s’ claims are DISMISSED for lack of subject -matter jurisdiction
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), or, alternatively, to transfer venue under Rule 12(b)(3).
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
Because plaintiffs’ claims are now moot and no exception to mootness applies, their suit must be DISMISSED for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
Because plaintiffs’ claims are now moot and no exception to mootness applies, their suit must be DISMISSED for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Because plaintiffs’ claims are now moot and no exception to mootness applies, their suit must be DISMISSED for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The other claims Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Unfortunately for plaintiffs, I agree with defendants that the claims are moot and must be dismissed.
Months pending 31.1 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
As of February 16, 2022, defendants have adjudicated all named plaintiffs’ applications.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Because plaintiffs’ claims are now moot and no exception to mootness applies, their suit must be DISMISSED for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:21-cv-02944
Filed
November 8, 2021
Ended
September 23, 2022
Suit's filing to its end
319 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
terminated; no disposition recorded

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.