Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Illinois

Gonzalez Ruiz v. Wolf

Northern District of IllinoisRobert W. GettlemanDecided November 13, 2020No. 1:20-cv-04276

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
USCIS, a department within the Department of Homeland Security, is the agency responsible for adjudicating visa applications.
Form or filing I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and the Mandamus Act, requesting the court find USCIS’s delay in adjudicating plaintiff’s U-Visa application unreasonable.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
The complaint additionally requests a mandamus order compelling USCIS to make a waitlist determination for plaintiff’s petition.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, defendants’ motion to dismiss 1s granted with respect to mandamus relief and denied in all other respects.
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)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants have moved to dismiss. (Doc. 7).
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
For the reasons stated above, defendants’ motion to dismiss 1s granted with respect to mandamus relief and denied in all other respects.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, defendants’ motion to dismiss 1s granted with respect to mandamus relief and denied in all other respects.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, defendants’ motion to dismiss 1s granted with respect to mandamus relief and denied in all other respects.
Months pending 5.3 months from the application to the suit; 9 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Her application, dated February 12, 2020, was accompanied by an application seeking a discretionary waiver of her prior removal orders and criminal convictions.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to establish that she possesses a right to “skip ahead of other petitioners.” Calderon-Ramirez, 877 F.3d at 275. Thus, a writ of mandamus is not warranted.
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected; APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
Based on the foregoing, the court finds that the USCIS has a nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate U-Visas within a reasonable time, and therefore the court has jurisdiction under the APA.
U visa claims Waiting list: goes on Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, defendants’ motion to dismiss 1s granted with respect to mandamus relief and denied in all other respects.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:20-cv-04276
Filed
July 21, 2020
Ended
October 12, 2021
Suit's filing to its end
448 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 13 (dismissed: settled)

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