Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of North Carolina

Kotolupova v. Garland

Eastern District of North CarolinaTerrence W. BoyleDecided October 22, 2024No. 5:24-cv-00198

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
Likewise, here, the Court finds that the pace at which USCIS is adjudicating plaintiff's Form 1-485 falls within the confines of a discretionary agency action; one which this Court is jurisdictionally barred from reviewing under § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
Simultaneously, plaintiff filed an Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (“Form 1-485” or “adjustment application”) with USCIS.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
After multiple unsuccessful attempts to contact USCIS, plaintiff filed this civil action in which she seeks to “[c]ompel [d]efendants and those acting under them to perform their duty to adjudicate” plaintiff's Form 1-485.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) is GRANTED [DE 10], and the case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) is GRANTED [DE 10], and the case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
This cause comes before the Court on defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) is GRANTED [DE 10], and the case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) is GRANTED [DE 10], and the case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) is GRANTED [DE 10], and the case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
Months pending 19.1 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On March 22, 2023, plaintiffs United States citizen spouse filed a Petition for Alien Relative (“Form I-130”) with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). [DE 1]. Simultaneously, plaintiff filed an Application
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied Read by a model
Yet plaintiff's jurisdictional attempts are futile, because § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the INA strips this Court of subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's claim.
Nationality Russia Read by a model
Plaintiff, a native and citizen of Russia, presently resides in the United States.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 5:24-cv-00198
Filed
March 26, 2024
Ended
October 22, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
210 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 3 (dismissed: lack of jurisdiction)

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 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.