Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of North Carolina

Valle v. Jaddou

Western District of North CarolinaMax O. Cogburn, JrDecided August 5, 2024No. 3:24-cv-00067

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
Plaintiffs complain that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) improperly withheld action on Plaintiffs’ I-918, I-765, and I-130 petitions.
Form or filing I-130 (relative petition); I-765 (EAD); I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
Later that year, Ms. Marino submitted a Form I-130 petition for alien relative on behalf of Mr. Valle, an important step towards obtaining his green card.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs complain that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) improperly withheld action on Plaintiffs’ I-918, I-765, and I-130 petitions.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED, that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 5) is GRANTED. This case is hereby DISMISSED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
The Court need only address Defendants’ first (jurisdictional, 12(b)(1)) argument to dispense with Plaintiffs’ I-130 claim, and thus the remainder of Plaintiffs’ case.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ I-130 claim will likewise be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the same Rule.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Thus, Defendants’ motion will be granted in its entirety.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ I-130 claim will likewise be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the same Rule.
Months pending Not stated at filing The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
Later that year, Ms. Marino submitted a Form I-130 petition for alien relative on behalf of Mr. Valle, an important step towards obtaining his green card.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ claims related to their I-918 and I-765 petitions will therefore be dismissed as moot
U visa claims Final decision: moot: the agency acted; Work permit: moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ I-918 and I-765 claims will be dismissed as moot under Rule 12(b)(1).
Nationality Honduras Read by a model
Plaintiff Valle, a Honduran national, was admitted to the United States in 2004 on a B-2 visa.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Plaintiff Marino, Mr. Valle’s wife, is a United States citizen.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:24-cv-00067
Filed
January 19, 2024
Ended
August 5, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
199 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant

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