Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of North Carolina

Badika v. Heffron

Western District of North CarolinaMax O. Cogburn, JrDecided June 1, 2021No. 3:20-cv-00649

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
The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) adjudicated these applications on April 16, 2021.
Form or filing I-130 (relative petition); I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
Plaintiffs sought adjudication of the Form I-130 Petition for Alien Relative by Ndofunsu Salomon Badika and the Form I-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status by Lydie Radjabo Badika, each submitted in February 2018.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs sought adjudication of the Form I-130 Petition for Alien Relative by Ndofunsu Salomon Badika and the Form I-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status by Lydie Radjabo Badika, each submitted in February 2018.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, (Doc. No. 9), is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
When determining a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), district courts “may consider evidence outside the pleadings” to assure itself of its own subject-matter jurisdiction.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction.
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ claims are moot, and this action is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ claims are moot, and this action is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ claims are moot, and this action is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Months pending 38 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) adjudicated these applications on April 16, 2021.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ claims are moot, and this action is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:20-cv-00649
Filed
November 23, 2020
Ended
June 1, 2021
Suit's filing to its end
190 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
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.

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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.