Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Missouri

Bemba v. Holder

Eastern District of MissouriRossDecided March 11, 2013No. 4:11-cv-01859

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
The Request for Evidence indicates that the USCIS is in the process of adjudicating Plaintiffs pending application for adjustment of status.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
Plaintiff filed an 1-485 Application for Adjustment of Status on April 23, 2007 with the Nebraska Service Center of the United States Citizen and Immigration Services (“USCIS”).
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiff contends that ordering the adjudication of his application will not prejudice any activities of a higher priority.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the Court grants Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to Counts I and II.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Summary judgment Read by a model
The Government moves to dismiss Plaintiffs claims pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and move for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.CivJP. 56(c).
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court denies Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss with respect to Counts I and II, without prejudice, and addresses Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on these claims.
Disposition Granted in the government's favor The principal motion was granted in full: summary judgment for either side, an injunction or TRO, a writ or order to act, fees. A motion to dismiss granted in full counts as Dismissed; a transfer is listed apart. Read by a model
The TRAC factors demonstrate that the Government’s actions and the delay are not unreasonable, and the Court grants Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to Counts I and II.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The TRAC factors demonstrate that the Government’s actions and the delay are not unreasonable, and the Court grants Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to Counts I and II.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
The TRAC factors demonstrate that the Government’s actions and the delay are not unreasonable, and the Court grants Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to Counts I and II.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
The Court grants Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Count III of Plaintiffs Complaint.
Months pending 54.1 months from the application to the suit; 70.6 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff filed an 1-485 Application for Adjustment of Status on April 23, 2007 with the Nebraska Service Center of the United States Citizen and Immigration Services (“USCIS”).
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesneutral
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety neededfavors the government
Read by a model
Based upon the arguments adduced by the Government, the Court finds that the length of time and the adjudicatory hold are governed by the rule of reason.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping found neutral Read by a model
Rather, it seems that the USCIS merely is waiting for a waiver of Plaintiffs terrorism-related inadmissibility grounds. 8 Thus, the Court finds that this factor is not implicated.
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model
Until this issue is decided, the Court agrees with those courts finding jurisdiction under the APA. The Court holds that it has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claim that the USCIS has unreasonably withheld action on his 1-485 application.
Nationality Republic of Congo Read by a model
is a native and citizen of The *1024 Republic of Congo

How the case ended

Docket
No. 4:11-cv-01859
Filed
October 26, 2011
Ended
March 11, 2013
Suit's filing to its end
502 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
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.

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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.