Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Patel v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Services (Uscis)

District of ColumbiaTanya S. ChutkanDecided September 29, 2023No. 1:22-cv-01930

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
Plaintiff alleges that USCIS has unreasonably delayed adjudication of his I-526 petition, and the court should “compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.”
Form or filing I-526 (investor petition) Read by a model
On the same day of his investment, Plaintiff submitted a I-526 petition (Receipt No. WAC2090031415) along with supporting documentation, and a $3,675.00 filing fee, to USCIS.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiff alleges that USCIS has unreasonably delayed adjudication of his I-526 petition, and the court should “compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons explained, the court will GRANT Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 7.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a defendant may move to dismiss a complaint for “failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.”
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
For the reasons explained, the court will GRANT Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 7.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the reasons explained, the court will GRANT Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 7.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons explained, the court will GRANT Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 7.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the reasons explained, the court will GRANT Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 7.
Months pending 31.6 months from the application to the suit; 46.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On the same day of his investment, Plaintiff submitted a I-526 petition (Receipt No. WAC2090031415) along with supporting documentation, and a $3,675.00 filing fee, to USCIS.
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 government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
The D.C. Circuit’s decision in Da Costa II is binding on this court, and therefore, based on the record before it, the court finds that USCIS’s adjudication process is governed by a rule of reason.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
The D.C. Circuit’s decision in Da Costa II is binding on this court, and therefore, based on the record before it, the court finds that USCIS’s adjudication process is governed by a rule of reason.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality India Read by a model
Plaintiff is an Indian citizen seeking to participate in the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:22-cv-01930
Filed
July 4, 2022
Ended
October 18, 2023
Suit's filing to its end
471 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.