Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Minnesota

Doe v. Wolf

District of MinnesotaEric C. TostrudDecided February 5, 2021

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 approved Mrs. Doe’s application but decided to reopen Mr. Doe’s case and review its prior determinations.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
In 2016, Plaintiffs filed applications for adjustment of status to become lawful permanent residents pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1255(m).
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
a writ of mandamus compelling Defendants to adjudicate Mr. Doe’s application
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss [ECF No. 29] is GRANTED;
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Defendants have moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss [ECF No. 29] is GRANTED;
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ concerns are insufficient to establish an ongoing controversy. Each of the allegedly unlawful actions taken by USCIS has been undone, and Plaintiffs are both now lawful permanent residents.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ concerns are insufficient to establish an ongoing controversy. Each of the allegedly unlawful actions taken by USCIS has been undone, and Plaintiffs are both now lawful permanent residents.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Contending that these actions render the case moot, Defendants have moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Defendants’ motion will be granted.
The other claims Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Contending that these actions render the case moot, Defendants have moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Defendants’ motion will be granted.
Months pending Not stated at filing 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
In 2016, Plaintiffs filed applications for adjustment of status to become lawful permanent residents pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1255(m).
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ concerns are insufficient to establish an ongoing controversy. Each of the allegedly unlawful actions taken by USCIS has been undone, and Plaintiffs are both now lawful permanent residents.
U visa claims Other U visa claim: moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Contending that these actions render the case moot, Defendants have moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Defendants’ motion will be granted.
Nationality Mexico Read by a model
Plaintiffs are natives and citizens of Mexico who have resided in the United States for many years.

How the case ended

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

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.