Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Iowa

Chaudhari v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

Northern District of IowaCJ WilliamsDecided May 4, 2026No. 3:25-cv-03041

Read the decisionOriginal on GovInfo

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
Harshkumar Chaudhari’s (“Plaintiff”) complaint seeking an order compelling the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to issue employment authorization documents (“EAD”) is before the Court.
Form or filing I-765 (EAD); I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
plaintiff filed a Form I-918 Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status and a Form I-765 Application for Employment Authorization with USCIS.
What the suit asked for Issue a work permit Read by a model
Harshkumar Chaudhari’s (“Plaintiff”) complaint seeking an order compelling the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to issue employment authorization documents (“EAD”) is before the Court.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons set out above, the Court dismisses with prejudice plaintiff’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Harshkumar Chaudhari’s (“Plaintiff”) complaint seeking an order compelling the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to issue employment authorization documents (“EAD”) is before the Court.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the reasons set out above, the Court dismisses with prejudice plaintiff’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons set out above, the Court dismisses with prejudice plaintiff’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the reasons set out above, the Court dismisses with prejudice plaintiff’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
Months pending 16.7 months from the application to the suit; 26.9 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
on February 6, 2024, plaintiff filed a Form I-918 Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status and a Form I-765 Application for Employment Authorization with USCIS.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied Read by a model
Here, the Court concludes that the decision to issue or not issue an EAD is firmly within the discretion of USCIS, and thus unreviewable by this Court.
U visa claims Work permit: dismissed under 1252(a)(2)(b) Read by a model
Here, the Court concludes that the decision to issue or not issue an EAD is firmly within the discretion of USCIS, and thus unreviewable by this Court.
Nationality India Read by a model
Plaintiff is a citizen of India

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:25-cv-03041
Filed
June 27, 2025
Ended
May 4, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
311 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 3 (dismissed: lack of jurisdiction)

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 Eighth 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.