Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of South Carolina

Carranza v. Cuccinelli

District of South CarolinaBruce H. HendricksDecided September 30, 2020No. 2:19-cv-03078

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
As the Magistrate Judge explained, Plaintiffs do not seek review of a discretionary determination made by USCIS; rather, they challenge the agency’s inaction and delay.
Form or filing I-765 (EAD); I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
a petition for U nonimmigrant status and employment authorization
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ first cause of action, which alleges unreasonable delay in deciding whether to place Plaintiffs on the waiting list
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim (ECF No. 12).
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim (ECF No. 12).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On January 3, 2020, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
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
the Court denies Defendants’ motion as to Plaintiffs’ first and second causes of action under the APA.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
the Court denies Defendants’ motion as to Plaintiffs’ first and second causes of action under the APA.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
the Court denies Defendants’ motion as to Plaintiffs’ first and second causes of action under the APA.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
the Court grants Defendants’ motion as to Plaintiffs’ third and fourth causes of action under the Due Process Clause and EAJA, respectively
Months pending 48 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Agency’s more-than-four-year delay
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
U visa claims Work permit: goes on; Waiting list: goes on Read by a model
the Court denies Defendants’ motion as to Plaintiffs’ first and second causes of action under the APA.
Nationality Honduras Read by a model
This case is filed by a citizen of Honduras and his family members

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:19-cv-03078
Filed
October 30, 2019
Ended
April 27, 2021
Suit's filing to its end
545 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.

Supreme Court and Fourth 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.