Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Pennsylvania

ALVAREZ v. RAUFER

Eastern District of PennsylvaniaJ. CURTIS JOYNERDecided March 12, 2020No. 2:19-cv-03155

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
In the Complaint, Plaintiff contends that her application has been pending with USCIS for nearly four years and that USCIS has neither scheduled her I-589 interview nor otherwise adjudicated her application, despite her attempts to work with Defendants to process her application.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
to adjudicate her I-589 asylum application.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
We follow Courts in this jurisdiction in finding that Plaintiff has successfully plead a writ of mandamus to compel Defendants to adjudicate her asylum application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
We deny Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) as to mandamus.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
We deny Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) as to mandamus.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Presently before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
Disposition Denied in the applicant's favor The principal motion was denied in full: a motion to dismiss denied so the case goes on, or relief denied on the merits. Read by a model
We deny Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) as to mandamus.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
We deny Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) as to mandamus.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
We deny Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) as to mandamus.
Months pending 48 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
However, Plaintiff alleges a delay of almost four years in adjudicating her application.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing rejected Read by a model
the Court in Karimushan found that such considerations alone do not defeat claims for unreasonable delay.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
ALVAREZ v. RAUFERThis decision March 12, 2020 J. CURTIS JOYNER Denied in the applicant's favor
ALVAREZ v. RAUFERThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted September 1, 2020 J. CURTIS JOYNER Granted in the government's favor

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:19-cv-03155
Filed
July 19, 2019
Ended
September 1, 2020
Suit's filing to its end
410 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 13 (dismissed: settled)

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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.