Mandamus decisions / Middle District of North Carolina

SARHAN v. UNITED STATES CITIZENS & IMMIGRATION SERVICES

Middle District of North CarolinaTHOMAS D. SCHROEDERDecided March 26, 2024No. 1:23-cv-00657

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 This case concerns a challenge to a decision of the U.S. Citizens & Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to deny the Form I-129F petition of pro se Plaintiff Robert Sarhan, M.D., to classify Shivani Bennet as his fiancée to permit her to enter the United States.
Form or filing	I-129F (fiancé(e) petition) Read by a model This case concerns a challenge to a decision of the U.S. Citizens & Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to deny the Form I-129F petition of pro se Plaintiff Robert Sarhan, M.D., to classify Shivani Bennet as his fiancée to permit her to enter the United States.
What the suit asked for	Not recorded Read by a model
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 30) is GRANTED and the complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Motion decided	Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model The first is Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 30.) Dr. Sarhan has responded in opposition (Doc. 33), and Defendants have replied (Doc. 35). The second are Dr. Sarhan’s motions for preliminary relief
Whose motion	Cross-motions Read by a model The first is Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 30.) Dr. Sarhan has responded in opposition (Doc. 33), and Defendants have replied (Doc. 35). The second are Dr. Sarhan’s motions for preliminary relief
Disposition	Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model To the extent claims three and six simply seek to compel a decision, such a claim is moot, as Dr. Sarhan has alleged that the USCIS and AAO have rendered decisions.
Prevailing party	Government Read by a model To the extent claims three and six simply seek to compel a decision, such a claim is moot, as Dr. Sarhan has alleged that the USCIS and AAO have rendered decisions.
The delay claim	Moot: the agency acted Read by a model To the extent claims three and six simply seek to compel a decision, such a claim is moot, as Dr. Sarhan has alleged that the USCIS and AAO have rendered decisions.
The other claims	Dismissed Read by a model IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 30) is GRANTED and the complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Months pending	11.7 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model Campagnola denied the application on January 7, 2022
TRAC factors	The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings	Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied; Held moot Read by a model Accordingly, Congress has stripped this court of jurisdiction to hear Dr. Sarhan’s claims as to the discretionary decision not to waive the two-year meeting requirement.

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision, this one. How decisions are grouped into cases.

Decision	Decided	Judge	Disposition
SARHAN v. UNITED STATES CITIZENS & IMMIGRATION SERVICES	December 22, 2023	THOMAS D. SCHROEDER	Magistrate judge's recommendation
SARHAN v. UNITED STATES CITIZENS & IMMIGRATION SERVICESThis decisionThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted	March 26, 2024	THOMAS D. SCHROEDER	Dismissed

How the case ended

Docket: No. 1:23-cv-00657
Filed: August 7, 2023
Ended: March 26, 2024
Suit's filing to its end: 232 days
How it ended: Ended once the agency acted
From the record: idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant

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 Fourth 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.

Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233

Supreme Court, January 20, 2010. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars review only of decisions whose discretionary character is specified by statute, not discretion the agency gives itself by regulation.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328

Supreme Court, May 16, 2022. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars review of any judgment regarding the granting of the listed forms of relief, including the factual findings on which a denial of adjustment rests.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, 604 U.S. 6

Supreme Court, December 10, 2024. Revoking an approved visa petition under § 1155 is a discretionary decision or action that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) places beyond judicial review.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
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
Gonzalez v. Cuccinelli, 985 F.3d 357

Fourth Circuit, January 14, 2021. Courts may review delay in placing U-visa petitioners on the waitlist under the TRAC factors and should not dismiss such claims at the pleading stage, but lack jurisdiction over delay in pre-waitlist work-permit requests, a point on which the Sixth Circuit disagrees.

ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Rejected in the Sixth Circuit by Barrios Garcia v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 25 F.4th 430 (2022).
Lovo v. Miller, 107 F.4th 199

Fourth Circuit, July 3, 2024. The 'decision or action' language of § 1182(a)(9)(B)(v), which the court treated as coextensive with § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), does not reach USCIS inaction, so a district court may hear a claim that USCIS unreasonably delayed a provisional unlawful-presence waiver.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 5 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-10-29; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
Kale v. Alfonso-Royals, 139 F.4th 329

Fourth Circuit, June 3, 2025. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), read with § 1255(a), bars review of USCIS's adjudication hold policy for adjustment applications affected by visa retrogression, joining the Third, Fifth, Eighth and Eleventh Circuits.

ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-11-02; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law. The citation index lists 33 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.