Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Louisiana

Salar v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

Eastern District of LouisianaJay C. ZaineyDecided December 18, 2023No. 2:23-cv-01997

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
Salar claims that USCIS has refused to adjudicate his Form I-589 for the past twenty months in bad faith and in derogation of its duty to make a determination sooner.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
On March 8, 2022, Salar filed a Form I-589 with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), requesting asylum on the basis that he is the target of persecution in his home country.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Salar claims that USCIS has refused to adjudicate his Form I-589 for the past twenty months in bad faith and in derogation of its duty to make a determination sooner.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons that follow, the motion is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
USCIS has moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and, in the alternative, under Federal Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Motion to Dismiss (Rec. Doc. 5) filed by Defendant, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (Rec. Doc. 5) filed by Defendant, United States Citizenship & Immigration Service, is GRANTED as explained above.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (Rec. Doc. 5) filed by Defendant, United States Citizenship & Immigration Service, is GRANTED as explained above.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (Rec. Doc. 5) filed by Defendant, United States Citizenship & Immigration Service, is GRANTED as explained above.
Months pending 21.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On March 8, 2022, Salar filed a Form I-589 with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), requesting asylum on the basis that he is the target of persecution in his home country.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:23-cv-01997
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 12), deciding the motion (ECF 5)
Filed
June 9, 2023
Ended
January 3, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
208 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.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision, and the motion number is read from that entry's text. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

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.