Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Illinois

Contreras Garcia v. Department of Homeland Security

Northern District of IllinoisRobert M. Dow, JrDecided December 30, 2019No. 1:19-cv-01265

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 her complaint, Plaintiff asks the Court to order USCIS to adjudicate her U-visa petition.
Form or filing I-246; I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
In her complaint, Plaintiff asks the Court to order USCIS to adjudicate her U-visa petition.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
In her complaint, Plaintiff asks the Court to order USCIS to adjudicate her U-visa petition.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For these reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss [13] is granted in part and denied in part.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In their reply brief, Defendants also raise a challenge to the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, which is governed by Rule 12(b)(1).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Currently before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim [13].
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
Nonetheless, this allegation is enough for Plaintiff to proceed on Count II.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Nonetheless, this allegation is enough for Plaintiff to proceed on Count II.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Nonetheless, this allegation is enough for Plaintiff to proceed on Count II.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Count I of the complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
Months pending 16 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Around August 29, 2018, Plaintiff filed a U-visa petition based on domestic violence.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablenot reached
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesnot reached
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
And perhaps most importantly, the regulations proscribe a duty for USCIS to adjudicate U petitions on a first in, first out basis, regardless of where the petitioner resides.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
U visa claims Other U visa claim: dismissed; Waiting list: goes on Read by a model
the Court concludes that the Court does not have subject matter over Plaintiff’s challenge to DHS’s denial of her request for a stay and, therefore, Count I of the complaint must be dismissed.
Nationality Mexico Read by a model
Plaintiff is a native and citizen of Mexico

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:19-cv-01265
Filed
February 20, 2019
Ended
June 17, 2020
Suit's filing to its end
483 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 12 (dismissed: voluntarily)

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 Seventh 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.