Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of North Carolina

Gonzalez v. Cissna

Eastern District of North CarolinaBoyleDecided March 6, 2019No. 7:18-cv-00135

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,917 written decisions from 2,664 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 7:07 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
Plaintiffs ask the Court to issue a writ of mandamus to compel USCIS to adjudicate their work authorization requests under 8 U.S.C. § 1184 (p)(6).
Form or filing I-765 (EAD); I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
Each of the plaintiffs either checked a box on their U-Visa petitions indicating that they requested work authorization or completed Form I-765 to apply for work authorization.
What the suit asked for Issue a work permit Read by a model
Plaintiffs ask the Court to issue a writ of mandamus to compel USCIS to adjudicate their work authorization requests under 8 U.S.C. § 1184 (p)(6).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
defendants' second motion to dismiss [DE 20] is GRANTED
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
In January 2019, defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs' complaints under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants have also moved to dismiss all of plaintiffs' causes of action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Rule 12(b)(6).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
All of plaintiffs' first four claims must be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Defendants' second motion to dismiss is, therefore, granted.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
All of plaintiffs' first four claims must be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
As plaintiffs have failed to state plausible FOIA claims and have merely recited the basic elements of such a claim, plaintiffs' fifth cause of action must also be dismissed.
Months pending 30 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiffs each filed their U-Visa petitions at least 30 months ago, between June 2015 and July 2016, and their petitions have not yet been processed.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablenot reached
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
USCIS's processing of first-filed petitions before later-filed petitions, with a select few petitions being expedited subject to criteria set forth by the agency, constitutes a "rule of reason" under the first TRAC factor.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
USCIS's processing of first-filed petitions before later-filed petitions, with a select few petitions being expedited subject to criteria set forth by the agency, constitutes a "rule of reason" under the first TRAC factor.
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied Read by a model
Thus, plaintiffs' first cause of action falls afoul of both 5 U.S.C. § 701 (a)(2) and 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(2)(B)(ii) and, as such, the Court lacks jurisdiction over the claim and it must be dismissed.
U visa claims Bona fide determination: dismissed under 1252(a)(2)(b); Work permit: dismissed; Waiting list: dismissed Read by a model
Thus, plaintiffs' first cause of action falls afoul of both 5 U.S.C. § 701 (a)(2) and 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(2)(B)(ii) and, as such, the Court lacks jurisdiction over the claim and it must be dismissed.
Nationality Mexico Read by a model
Plaintiffs are citizens of Mexico and Honduras

Other orders in this case

The group holds 3 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
Gonzalez v. CissnaThis decision March 6, 2019 Boyle Dismissed
Gonzalez v. Jaddou August 18, 2021 Dismissed as moot
Gonzalez v. JaddouThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted December 15, 2021 Attorney's fees

How the case ended

Docket
No. 7:18-cv-00135
Filed
July 27, 2018
Ended
September 20, 2021
Suit's filing to its end
152 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
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. 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.