Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Iowa

Singh v. United States Department of Homeland Security

Northern District of IowaLeonard T StrandDecided February 24, 2023No. 3:22-cv-03035

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
USCIS cannot approve plaintiffs’ applications without a visa number from DOS and no visa number is available from DOS based on plaintiffs’ priority date.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
This dispute concerns the adjudication of plaintiffs’ I-485 applications (also referred to as green card applications).
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
The complaint requested an order compelling defendants to adjudicate their permanent residency applications by September 30, 2022 (the end of Fiscal Year 2022, or FY22), or to order that USCIS “reserve” or “hold” extra EB visa numbers for plaintiffs.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons stated herein, defendants’ motion (Doc. 20) to dismiss is granted and this action is hereby dismissed.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
As such, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and plaintiffs’ claims must be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
This case is before me on a motion (Doc. 20) to dismiss by defendants United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the reasons stated herein, defendants’ motion (Doc. 20) to dismiss is granted and this action is hereby dismissed.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons stated herein, defendants’ motion (Doc. 20) to dismiss is granted and this action is hereby dismissed.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
As such, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and plaintiffs’ claims must be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1).
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
For the reasons stated herein, defendants’ motion (Doc. 20) to dismiss is granted and this action is hereby dismissed.
Months pending 4.3 months from the application to the suit The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
On May 9, 2022, plaintiffs submitted their I-485 applications so they could adjust status to permanent residents as soon as their priority date became current.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
The government's delay arguments Visa availability accepted Read by a model
USCIS cannot approve plaintiffs’ applications without a visa number from DOS and no visa number is available from DOS based on plaintiffs’ priority date. As such, plaintiffs have failed to prove that their alleged injury is redressable.
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
In short, with regard to FY22 visas, plaintiffs either lack standing based on redressability or their claim is moot.
Nationality India Read by a model
Plaintiffs are nationals of India.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:22-cv-03035
Filed
September 16, 2022
Ended
February 24, 2023
Suit's filing to its end
161 days
How it ended
Ended, outcome not recorded
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 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.