Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Missouri

Haydary v. Garland

Eastern District of MissouriJohn M. BodenhausenDecided November 25, 2024No. 4:24-cv-00836

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
In Plaintiff’s case, the USCIS has decided not to expedite Plaintiff’s request (an inaction as it were) and instead consider his request pursuant to its policies.
Form or filing I-131 (travel document) Read by a model
Anyone can request humanitarian parole by filing a Form I-131, Application for Travel Document, along with other forms, declarations, evidence, and fees
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
Thus, Plaintiff argues that Defendants have a duty to expeditiously resolve his parole applications and that this Court has the jurisdiction to compel them to act.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 5) is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
In considering a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) motion, the Court must first
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 5)
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
This matter is DISMISSED with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 5) is GRANTED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
This matter is DISMISSED with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Months pending 27.9 months from the application to the suit; 33.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
who applied for humanitarian parole on behalf of six family members on February 18, 2022
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied Read by a model
This discretionary decision is subject to the jurisdictional bar.
Nationality Afghanistan Read by a model
six family members, who are all Afghan nationals, have suffered from the unreasonable delay.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 4:24-cv-00836
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 11)
Filed
June 17, 2024
Ended
November 25, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
161 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2024-11-25 dismisses for want of jurisdiction; 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.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

Supreme Court and Eighth 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.