Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Oklahoma

Patel v. Garland

Eastern District of OklahomaJason A. RobertsonDecided July 6, 2023No. 6:22-cv-00379

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
Plaintiff contends that Defendants have not considered the request for a U-Visa waitlist nor made a bona fide determination on Plaintiff’s Petition as required by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) policies.
Form or filing I-765 (EAD); I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
Plaintiff, a citizen of India, filed an I-918 Petition for U-Nonimmigrant Status as well as an I-765 application, which remains pending with the United States.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiff contends that Defendants have not considered the request for a U-Visa waitlist nor made a bona fide determination on Plaintiff’s Petition as required by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) policies.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket Entry #9)is hereby GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants bring the subject Motion for the failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket Entry #9).
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
Any claim for mandamus relief asserted by Plaintiff is hereby DISMISSED. The remainder of the Motion is hereby DENIED.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Any claim for mandamus relief asserted by Plaintiff is hereby DISMISSED. The remainder of the Motion is hereby DENIED.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Any claim for mandamus relief asserted by Plaintiff is hereby DISMISSED. The remainder of the Motion is hereby DENIED.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing rejected Read by a model
The problems this Court perceives in Defendants’ arguments are (1) no evidence is currently before the Court at this dismissal stage to prove any of Defendants’ allegations;
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
The relief provided by the Administrative Procedure Act provides Plaintiff with an adequate remedy to compel agency action which is unreasonably delayed. 5 U.S.C. § 706(1). As a result, any claim for mandamus relief asserted by Plaintiff is dismissed.
U visa claims Bona fide determination: goes on; Waiting list: goes on Read by a model
Any claim for mandamus relief asserted by Plaintiff is hereby DISMISSED. The remainder of the Motion is hereby DENIED.
Nationality India Read by a model
Plaintiff, a citizen of India

How the case ended

Docket
No. 6:22-cv-00379
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 28)
Filed
December 27, 2022
Ended
August 14, 2023
Suit's filing to its end
230 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.

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 Tenth 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.