Passim

Mandamus decisions / Middle District of Pennsylvania

Jane Doe 1 v. Wolf

Middle District of PennsylvaniaJennifer P. WilsonDecided September 13, 2021No. 1:20-cv-02339

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,996 written decisions from 2,731 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided November 12, 2026. Updated November 14, 2026 at 1:17 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 1,617 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,406 (87%), 1,039 of them in this group, measured November 14, 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
Before the court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for relief directing the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (“USCIS”) to adjudicate her U Visa petition and related application for employment authorization.
Form or filing I-765 (EAD); I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
On December 19, 2016, Doe #1 filed a Form I-918 Petition for U Visa Nonimmigrant Status
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
mandamus compelling the USCIS to (1) determine her eligibility to be placed on the U Visa waiting list;
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the court will grant in part and deny in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Because Plaintiff’s claims in Counts I and II regarding employment authorization and Plaintiff’s mandamus claim in Count III fail the court’s Rule 12(b)(1) analysis, the only remaining claim at issue for the court’s Rule 12(b)(6) analysis
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
Count I as it relates to the pace by which the USCIS is placing qualified individuals on the U Visa waitlist may proceed.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Count I as it relates to the pace by which the USCIS is placing qualified individuals on the U Visa waitlist may proceed.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Count I as it relates to the pace by which the USCIS is placing qualified individuals on the U Visa waitlist may proceed.
Months pending 47.8 months from the application to the suit; 56.8 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On December 19, 2016, Doe #1 filed a Form I-918 Petition for U Visa Nonimmigrant Status
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected; APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
the court concludes that it has subject matter jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s APA claim regarding the pace by which the USCIS is reviewing U Visa petitions.
U visa claims Work permit: dismissed; Waiting list: goes on Read by a model
Count I is dismissed in part as it relates to any claims regarding the USCIS’ duty to issue employment authorization prior to final adjudication of U Visa petitions for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Counts II and III are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Nationality Guatemala Read by a model
Plaintiff Jane Doe #1 (“Doe #1”) is a citizen of Guatemala

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:20-cv-02339
Filed
December 14, 2020
Ended
October 19, 2021
Suit's filing to its end
309 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 12 (dismissed: voluntarily)

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 Third 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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.