Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Virginia

Doe v. Mayorkas

Eastern District of VirginiaRossie D. Alston Jr.Decided June 7, 2021No. 1:20-cv-00618

Read the decision Original 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	USCIS Read by a model Petitioner submitted an application for a T-Visa on August 15, 2018 and contends that USCIS has not taken any further action on the application.
Form or filing	I-131 (travel document); I-914 (T visa) Read by a model Petitioner submitted an application for a T-Visa on August 15, 2018 and contends that USCIS has not taken any further action on the application.
What the suit asked for	Decide the application Read by a model Respondents counter that USCIS adjudicated Petitioner’s T-Visa application on February 4, 2020, concluding that any claim to compel such adjudication is now moot.
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model Accordingly, Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 32) is GRANTED, and the Petition is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Motion decided	Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model For these reasons, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Accordingly, Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 32) is GRANTED, and the Petition is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model On June 22, 2020, Respondents filed their Motion to Dismiss
Disposition	Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model Petitioner’s application for a T-Visa has been resolved by USCIS. The Court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claim and denies this portion of the Petition as moot.
Prevailing party	Government Read by a model Petitioner’s application for a T-Visa has been resolved by USCIS. The Court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claim and denies this portion of the Petition as moot.
The delay claim	Moot: the agency acted Read by a model Petitioner’s application for a T-Visa has been resolved by USCIS. The Court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claim and denies this portion of the Petition as moot.
The other claims	Dismissed Read by a model Accordingly, Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 32) is GRANTED, and the Petition is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Months pending	13 months from the application to the suit; 17.7 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model Respondents counter that USCIS adjudicated Petitioner’s T-Visa application on February 4, 2020, concluding that any claim to compel such adjudication is now moot.
TRAC factors	The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings	Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied; Held moot Read by a model This Court cannot adjudicate this claim, however, because Congress has stripped federal district courts of jurisdiction to review such discretionary decisions by the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General.
Nationality	South Korea Read by a model Petitioner, a citizen of the Republic of Korea

How the case ended

Docket: No. 1:20-cv-00618
Filed: June 3, 2020
Ended: June 7, 2021
Suit's filing to its end: 369 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.

Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233

Supreme Court, January 20, 2010. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars review only of decisions whose discretionary character is specified by statute, not discretion the agency gives itself by regulation.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328

Supreme Court, May 16, 2022. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars review of any judgment regarding the granting of the listed forms of relief, including the factual findings on which a denial of adjustment rests.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, 604 U.S. 6

Supreme Court, December 10, 2024. Revoking an approved visa petition under § 1155 is a discretionary decision or action that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) places beyond judicial review.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55

Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Gonzalez v. Cuccinelli, 985 F.3d 357

Fourth Circuit, January 14, 2021. Courts may review delay in placing U-visa petitioners on the waitlist under the TRAC factors and should not dismiss such claims at the pleading stage, but lack jurisdiction over delay in pre-waitlist work-permit requests, a point on which the Sixth Circuit disagrees.

ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Rejected in the Sixth Circuit by Barrios Garcia v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 25 F.4th 430 (2022).
Lovo v. Miller, 107 F.4th 199

Fourth Circuit, July 3, 2024. The 'decision or action' language of § 1182(a)(9)(B)(v), which the court treated as coextensive with § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), does not reach USCIS inaction, so a district court may hear a claim that USCIS unreasonably delayed a provisional unlawful-presence waiver.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 5 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-10-29; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
Kale v. Alfonso-Royals, 139 F.4th 329

Fourth Circuit, June 3, 2025. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), read with § 1255(a), bars review of USCIS's adjudication hold policy for adjustment applications affected by visa retrogression, joining the Third, Fifth, Eighth and Eleventh Circuits.

ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-11-02; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law. The citation index lists 33 other decisions citing it, none a Supreme Court, BIA or Attorney General precedent or a published circuit opinion; ImmCite's status does not review them.