Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of South Carolina

Pandya v. Cuccinelli

District of South CarolinaJ Michelle ChildsDecided January 13, 2021No. 5:20-cv-01541

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
To start, the court finds it has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claim related to the pace of USCIS’s U-Visa waitlist adjudication.
Form or filing I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
This case arises from their application for U Nonimmigrant Status (“U-Visa”).
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
As Plaintiffs “seek adjudication of their application within a reasonable time, the court has jurisdiction under the APA to hear Plaintiffs’ claim” related to the pace of USCIS’s U-Visa and waitlist adjudication.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss without prejudice
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
under two theories: (1) the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1); and (2), alternatively, Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
For the following reasons, the court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss without prejudice (ECF No. 6), and DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion to Expedite Discovery without prejudice (ECF No. 10).
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
Accordingly, Plaintiffs have sufficiently stated a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiffs have sufficiently stated a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiffs have sufficiently stated a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
Months pending 41 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
In August 2017, Plaintiffs allege they submitted U-Visa applications
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied; Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model
Here, the court finds it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ pre-waitlist claim because USCIS’s decision to grant pre-waitlist work authorization is discretionary.
U visa claims Bona fide determination: dismissed under 1252(a)(2)(b); Waiting list: goes on Read by a model
As USCIS has discretion to award pre-waitlist work authorization, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this claim. See Gonzalez, 364 F. Supp. 3d at 584. The pre-waitlist claim must therefore be dismissed without prejudice.
Nationality India Read by a model
Joshi and her husband Pandya are Indian citizens currently residing in South Carolina.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 5:20-cv-01541
Filed
April 22, 2020
Ended
April 14, 2021
Suit's filing to its end
357 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.

Supreme Court and Fourth 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.