Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Minnesota

Doe v. Mayorkas

District of MinnesotaEric C. TostrudDecided September 23, 2022No. 0:22-cv-00752

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
In February 2020, USCIS denied his application for an extension as it determined financial hardship was insufficient as a necessary “exceptional circumstance” to justify it.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status); I-539 (change or extension of stay) Read by a model
Doe alleges that Defendants’ denial of his I-539 and I-485 applications resulted in violations of the APA (Counts One, Three, and Four) and the INA (Counts Six and Seven).
What the suit asked for Not recorded Read by a model
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 24] is GRANTED;
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction will be granted.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), and failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject- matter jurisdiction.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 24] is GRANTED;
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject- matter jurisdiction.
Months pending 17.5 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
On February 27, 2020, USCIS denied Doe’s I-539 application.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied Read by a model
First, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) strips the Court of jurisdiction to review Doe’s claims relating to USCIS’s denial of his application for an adjustment of status to become a lawful permanent resident.
Nationality Mexico Read by a model
Plaintiff John Doe, a Mexican citizen, entered the United States unlawfully in 2003.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 0:22-cv-00752
Filed
March 27, 2022
Ended
September 23, 2022
Suit's filing to its end
180 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 3 (dismissed: lack of jurisdiction)

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 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.