Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Louisiana

Doe v. Department of Homeland Security

Eastern District of LouisianaDarrel James PapillionDecided April 12, 2024No. 2:23-cv-00002

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
On January 3, 2023, Doe filed suit against USCIS, the agency charged with adjudicating asylum applications, claiming that it is unlawfully delaying the adjudication of her asylum application.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
filed an Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal on March 16, 2020.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
On January 3, 2023, Doe filed suit against USCIS, the agency charged with adjudicating asylum applications, claiming that it is unlawfully delaying the adjudication of her asylum application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
To the extent USCIS seeks dismissal of Doe’s claims on the merits, USCIS’s motion is GRANTED, and Doe’s claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Summary judgment Read by a model
Rather than exclude these exhibits, the Court converts USCIS’s motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
To the extent USCIS seeks dismissal of Doe’s claims on the merits, USCIS’s motion is GRANTED, and Doe’s claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
To the extent USCIS seeks dismissal of Doe’s claims on the merits, USCIS’s motion is GRANTED, and Doe’s claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
For this reason, USCIS is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Months pending 33.6 months from the application to the suit; 48.9 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
filed an Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal on March 16, 2020.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety neededfavors the government
Read by a model
For these reasons, the TRAC factors support a finding that the adjudication of asylum applications pursuant to LIFO is a rule of reason.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Based on the foregoing, there can be little doubt that LIFO is a rule of reason.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality China Read by a model
Doe is a Chinese citizen

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:23-cv-00002
Filed
January 3, 2023
Ended
July 10, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
554 days
How it ended
Ended, outcome not recorded
From the record
idb disp 18 (statistical closing)

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 Fifth 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.