Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Texas

Vasylchenko v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

Northern District of TexasKaren Gren ScholerDecided July 25, 2022No. 3:21-cv-02815

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
According to Plaintiff, USCIS completed the fingerprinting and photographing phase of the application review process but has not taken any action since.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
On June 18, 2020, he filed an application for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident (“I-485 Application”) with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”).
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
seeking to compel Defendants to adjudicate his I-485 Application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support (“Motion”) [ECF No. 7].
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants now move to dismiss the first claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and the second claim for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support (“Motion”) [ECF No. 7].
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support (“Motion”) [ECF No. 7].
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support (“Motion”) [ECF No. 7].
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's APA claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
The Court therefore DISMISSES Plaintiff's due process claim for failure to state a claim.
Months pending 16.8 months from the application to the suit; 25.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On June 18, 2020, he filed an application for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident (“I-485 Application”) with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”).
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
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's APA claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Nationality Ukraine Read by a model
Plaintiff Andrii Vasylchenko is a citizen of Ukraine who was granted asylum by the United States on or about May 20, 2019.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:21-cv-02815
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 17), deciding the motion (ECF 7)
Filed
November 12, 2021
Ended
July 28, 2022
Suit's filing to its end
258 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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, and the motion number is read from that entry's text. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

Supreme Court and Fifth 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.