Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of South Carolina

Aguilar v. Cuccinelli

District of South CarolinaMargaret B SeymourDecided October 5, 2020No. 2:19-cv-03051

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
USCIS received the application package on October 29, 2015.
Form or filing I-765 (EAD); I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
Aguilar filed an I-918, Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status (“I-918 Petition”), in which she requested work authorization, also known as an Employment Authorization Document
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs also seek an order compelling USCIS to render a decision about wait list placement and work authorization within seven days of determining the existence of an unreasonable delay.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons discussed herein, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ due process claim is granted and Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ EAJA claim is granted. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ APA claim is denied.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
This matter is before the court on the motion to dismiss filed by Defendants
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
Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ APA claim is denied.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ APA claim is denied.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ APA claim is denied.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ due process claim is granted and Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ EAJA claim is granted.
Months pending 48 months from the application to the suit; 59.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
USCIS received the application package on October 29, 2015.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected; Mootness argument rejected Read by a model
For these reasons, the court finds it has jurisdiction to consider Plaintiffs’ APA claim regarding USCIS’s failure to adjudicate their U Visa petition.
U visa claims Work permit: goes on; Waiting list: goes on Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ APA claim is denied.
Nationality Mexico Read by a model
Plaintiff Camino Aguilar is a citizen of Mexico.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:19-cv-03051
Filed
October 28, 2019
Ended
October 21, 2021
Suit's filing to its end
724 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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