Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Gomez v. Kelly

District of ColumbiaColleen Kollar-KotellyDecided March 22, 2018

Read the decisionOriginal 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
Plaintiff alleges also that U.S. Customs and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) has unlawfully withheld records responsive to his Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request submitted in February 2017.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
He seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the federal government to adjudicate his “Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal.”
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
He seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the federal government to adjudicate his “Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the Federal Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss and dismisses all claims except plaintiff’s FOIA claim.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
the federal defendants moved under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss plaintiff’s claims
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the Federal Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss and dismisses all claims except plaintiff’s FOIA claim.
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
Therefore, plaintiff’s mandamus claim and his related APA claim predicated on the alleged delay in considering his asylum application are now moot.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Therefore, plaintiff’s mandamus claim and his related APA claim predicated on the alleged delay in considering his asylum application are now moot.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Therefore, plaintiff’s mandamus claim and his related APA claim predicated on the alleged delay in considering his asylum application are now moot.
The other claims Some dismissed, some go on Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the Federal Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss and dismisses all claims except plaintiff’s FOIA claim.
Months pending Not stated at filing The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Therefore, plaintiff’s mandamus claim and his related APA claim predicated on the alleged delay in considering his asylum application are now moot.
Nationality Venezuela Read by a model
Plaintiff asserts that he is “de facto stateless” because Venezuela “de facto stripped” him of his Venezuelan nationality on January 6, 2017.

How the case ended

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

Supreme Court and D.C. 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.