Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Earle v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

District of ColumbiaAmy Berman JacksonDecided March 9, 2017

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 Department of Justice Read by a model
(A) [Except with respect to nonviolent offenders], the Attorney General may not remove an alien who is sentenced to imprisonment until the alien is released from imprisonment.
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
In this action, petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 to compel his deportation to his home country of Jamaica, in accordance with a removal order issued on May 15, 1995.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
So the court will grant respondent’s motion without addressing the preclusion arguments.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
In response to the court’s order to show cause why the writ should not issue, the respondents, Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) and United States Attorney General, have moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) [Dkt. # 13].
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
the respondents, Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) and United States Attorney General, have moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, this case will be dismissed for want of subject matter jurisdiction.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, this case will be dismissed for want of subject matter jurisdiction.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, this case will be dismissed for want of subject matter jurisdiction.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Jamaica Read by a model
Petitioner is a Jamaican national

How the case ended

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

Supreme Court and D.C. 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.