Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Virginia

Belay v. Gentry

Eastern District of VirginiaRossie D. Alston, JrDecided July 28, 2025No. 1:24-cv-02117

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 Plaintiff seeks an order from this Court compelling USCIS to adjudicate his Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal.
Form or filing	I-589 (asylum) Read by a model Plaintiff seeks an order from this Court compelling USCIS to adjudicate his Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal.
What the suit asked for	Decide the asylum application Read by a model Plaintiff seeks an order from this Court compelling USCIS to adjudicate his Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal.
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion and GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for the reasons that follow.
Motion decided	Summary judgment Read by a model the Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 5) is GRANTED
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt.
Disposition	Granted in the government's favor The principal motion was granted in full: summary judgment for either side, an injunction or TRO, a writ or order to act, fees. A motion to dismiss granted in full counts as Dismissed; a transfer is listed apart. Read by a model the Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 5) is GRANTED
Prevailing party	Government Read by a model the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter Rule 58 judgment on behalf of Defendant and against Plaintiffs
The delay claim	Relief denied Read by a model Turning next to Plaintiff’s unreasonable delay claim, that claim also fails such that Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Months pending	25.1 months from the application to the suit; 33.1 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model On October 23, 2022, Plaintiff filed his Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal.
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 Accordingly, the first and second TRAC factors weigh in Defendants’ favor.
The government's delay arguments	First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model Thus, the admissible information10 provided by Defendants establishes that the combination LIFO/backlog reduction system provides a rule of reason informed by the statutory scheme.
Threshold rulings	None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket: No. 1:24-cv-02117
Filed: November 25, 2024
Ended: July 28, 2025
Suit's filing to its end: 245 days
How it ended: Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record: idb disp 17 (judgment: other), 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.

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.