Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Illinois

Kulla v. Mayorkas

Northern District of IllinoisSharon Johnson ColemanDecided September 13, 2024No. 1:24-cv-03847

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
This receipt notice indicates that Plaintiff’s application is being processed at the USCIS Arlington, Virginia Asylum Office.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
In June 2015, Plaintiff filed a Form I-589, listing his spouse and three children as derivative applicants.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
for failure to timely adjudicate Plaintiff’s Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal (“Form I-589”) and seeking a writ of mandamus compelling Defendants to adjudicate his application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the following reasons, the Court grants Defendants’ motion [7].
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Other motion to dismiss Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) and 12(b)(6).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For these reasons, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss for improper venue.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For these reasons, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss for improper venue.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For these reasons, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss for improper venue.
Months pending 106.4 months from the application to the suit; 110.6 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
acknowledging that Plaintiff’s application was received and had been pending since June 27, 2015.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Syria Read by a model
Plaintiff is a citizen of Syria

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-03847
Filed
May 10, 2024
Ended
October 15, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
158 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
idb disp 2 (dismissed: want of prosecution)

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.