Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Illinois

Dyvonyak v. Mayorkas

Northern District of IllinoisSharon Johnson ColemanDecided July 24, 2024No. 1:23-cv-16528

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
against Defendants United States Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas and United States Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) Ur Mendoza Jaddou, (the “Government”).
Form or filing I-360 (special immigrant petition) Read by a model
As a result, she filed Form I-360 VAWA self-petitions (“VAWA Petitions”) on February 22, 2022.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiff alleges that the Government has willfully, unreasonably delayed, and refused to adjudicate her VAWA Petition.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons below, the Government’s motion to dismiss [15] is granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
The Government argues that the Plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
For the reasons below, the Government’s motion to dismiss [15] is granted. Because the Court concludes that dismissal of the complaint is appropriate, it does not reach the question of summary judgment.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Based on the foregoing, the Government’s motion to dismiss [15] Plaintiffs writ of mandamus [1] is granted as it fails to state a claim for unreasonable delay under the APA or the Mandamus Act.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons below, the Government’s motion to dismiss [15] is granted.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
the Government’s motion to dismiss [15] Plaintiffs writ of mandamus [1] is granted as it fails to state a claim for unreasonable delay under the APA or the Mandamus Act.
Months pending 29 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
As a result, she filed Form I-360 VAWA self-petitions (“VAWA Petitions”) on February 22, 2022.
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 two TRAC factors favor the Government.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
As a court in this district had decided, “compelling an expedited adjudication of the Plaintiff’s application would presumably divert resources away from other competing priorities.”
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
In short, because Plaintiff may seek to compel the same action under the APA that she seeks to compel via mandamus, the Court dismisses their petition for a writ of mandamus as duplicative.
Nationality Ukraine Read by a model
Plaintiff is a native and citizen of Ukraine.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-16528
Filed
December 6, 2023
Ended
July 24, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
231 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2024-07-24 dismisses on the TRAC factors; 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 Seventh 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.