Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Dawoud v. Department of Homeland Security

District of ColumbiaRandolph D. MossDecided December 3, 2024No. 1:24-cv-02054

Read the decision Original 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 USCIS, the agency tasked with adjudicating Form I-130 petitions, sent Ms. Dawoud a letter confirming receipt of her petition on March 6, 2021.
Form or filing	I-130 (relative petition) Read by a model filed a Petition for Alien Relative (Form I-130) in January 2021
What the suit asked for	Decide the application Read by a model Plaintiffs seek a declaration that Defendants’ delay in adjudicating Ms. Dawoud’s I-130 petition is unlawful, and they ask the Court to issue a writ of mandamus requiring that Defendants adjudicate the petition within thirty days.
Kind of order	A transfer order Read by a model The Court, accordingly, hereby GRANTS Defendants’ motion to transfer, Dkt. 4, and ORDERS the Clerk of Court to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
Motion decided	Transfer Read by a model The Court, accordingly, hereby GRANTS Defendants’ motion to transfer, Dkt. 4, and ORDERS the Clerk of Court to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model The Court, accordingly, hereby GRANTS Defendants’ motion to transfer, Dkt. 4
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 The Court, accordingly, hereby GRANTS Defendants’ motion to transfer, Dkt. 4, and ORDERS the Clerk of Court to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
Prevailing party	Neither side Read by a model The Court, accordingly, hereby GRANTS Defendants’ motion to transfer, Dkt. 4, and ORDERS the Clerk of Court to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
The delay claim	Not decided here Read by a model In light of that decision, the Court will not consider Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Dkt. 5.
The other claims	Not decided here Read by a model In light of that decision, the Court will not consider Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Dkt. 5.
Months pending	42.1 months from the application to the suit; 46.7 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model On January 12, 2021, Ms. Dawoud filed a Petition for Alien Relative (Form I-130), on behalf of her husband Mr.
TRAC factors	The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings	None Read by a model
I-130 category	Immediate relative Read by a model seeking to classify him as the spouse of a U.S. citizen for immigration purposes.

How the case ended

Docket: No. 1:24-cv-02054
Filed: July 16, 2024
Ended: December 3, 2024
Suit's filing to its end: 140 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.

Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55

Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Telecommunications Research & Action Center v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70

D.C. Circuit, October 24, 1984. Whether agency delay is unreasonable turns on six factors: a rule of reason, any statutory timetable, the human welfare interests at stake, the effect of expediting on competing priorities, the interests prejudiced by delay, and no need to find impropriety.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Council, Inc. v. Norton, 336 F.3d 1094

D.C. Circuit, August 8, 2003. A claim that an agency has unreasonably delayed a matter arises under the APA and § 1331, and the TRAC factors decide whether the delay is unreasonable.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
In re Core Communications, Inc., 531 F.3d 849

D.C. Circuit, July 8, 2008. Mandamus to compel unreasonably delayed agency action is an extraordinary remedy guided by the TRAC factors, granted here after years of unexplained delay.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Da Costa v. Immigration Investor Program Office, 80 F.4th 330

D.C. Circuit, August 18, 2023. EB-5 petition delays of roughly four years were not unreasonable under TRAC where USCIS adjudicates in a rule-of-reason order and expediting the plaintiffs would only move them ahead of others in the queue.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
American Hospital Ass'n v. Burwell, 812 F.3d 183

D.C. Circuit, February 9, 2016. A delay claim under the Mandamus Act requires a clear duty, a clear right and no adequate alternative remedy, and the TRAC factors then decide whether the delay warrants relief, with a statutory deadline weighing heavily.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Afghan and Iraqi Allies v. Blinken, 103 F.4th 807

D.C. Circuit, June 7, 2024. TRAC governs visa-processing delay claims in district court, a court that finds unreasonable delay may set adjudication deadlines, and expediting a whole class in queue order is not line-jumping.

ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-10-28; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law. The citation index lists 49 other decisions citing it, none a Supreme Court, BIA or Attorney General precedent or a published circuit opinion; ImmCite's status does not review them.