Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia
Olofin v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
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
USCIS acknowledged receipt of their Form I-526 application on October 17, 2019, but has yet to adjudicate it. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
I-526 (investor petition)
Read by a model
The Olofins filed a Form I-526 application in October 2019. |
| What the suit asked for |
Decide the application
Read by a model
filed this action seeking to compel U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to process their Form I-526 application for immigrant visas through the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program. |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant USCIS’s motion to dismiss. |
| Motion decided |
Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
Read by a model
USCIS moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
USCIS moved to dismiss for 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
the Court will dismiss the suit under Rule 12(b)( 6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. |
| Prevailing party |
Government
Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant USCIS’s motion to dismiss. |
| The delay claim |
Dismissed
Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant USCIS’s motion to dismiss. |
| Months pending |
31.9 months from the application to the suit; 39.9 months from the application to the court's decision
Read by a model
The Olofins filed a Form I-526 application in October 2019. |
| TRAC factors |
The court weighed the TRAC factors
In sum, the first two TRAC factors favor USCIS, as Form I-562 adjudications are governed by a rule of reason that is not supplanted by a binding congressional timeline. |
| The government's delay arguments |
First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted
Read by a model
Under the visa availability approach, USCIS processes petitions in order of the first filed, with a wholly rational caveat: it prioritizes petitions from immigrants whose countries have yet to meet their visa availability cap. |
| Threshold rulings | None Read by a model |
| Nationality |
Nigeria
Read by a model
The Olofins are nationals of Nigeria and residents of Oregon. |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 1:22-cv-01684
- Filed
- June 13, 2022
- Ended
- February 10, 2023
- Suit's filing to its end
- 242 days
- How it ended
- Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
- From the record
- idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant
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 D.C. 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.
-
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55
Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Telecommunications Research & Action Center v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70
D.C. Circuit, October 24, 1984. Whether agency delay is unreasonable turns on six factors: a rule of reason, any statutory timetable, the human welfare interests at stake, the effect of expediting on competing priorities, the interests prejudiced by delay, and no need to find impropriety.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Council, Inc. v. Norton, 336 F.3d 1094
D.C. Circuit, August 8, 2003. A claim that an agency has unreasonably delayed a matter arises under the APA and § 1331, and the TRAC factors decide whether the delay is unreasonable.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 11 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-13; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
-
In re Core Communications, Inc., 531 F.3d 849
D.C. Circuit, July 8, 2008. Mandamus to compel unreasonably delayed agency action is an extraordinary remedy guided by the TRAC factors, granted here after years of unexplained delay.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 9 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-13; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
-
Da Costa v. Immigration Investor Program Office, 80 F.4th 330
D.C. Circuit, August 18, 2023. EB-5 petition delays of roughly four years were not unreasonable under TRAC where USCIS adjudicates in a rule-of-reason order and expediting the plaintiffs would only move them ahead of others in the queue.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 4 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-13; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
-
American Hospital Ass'n v. Burwell, 812 F.3d 183
D.C. Circuit, February 9, 2016. A delay claim under the Mandamus Act requires a clear duty, a clear right and no adequate alternative remedy, and the TRAC factors then decide whether the delay warrants relief, with a statutory deadline weighing heavily.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 12 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-13; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
-
Afghan and Iraqi Allies v. Blinken, 103 F.4th 807
D.C. Circuit, June 7, 2024. TRAC governs visa-processing delay claims in district court, a court that finds unreasonable delay may set adjudication deadlines, and expediting a whole class in queue order is not line-jumping.
ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-11-04; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law. The citation index lists 52 other decisions citing it, none a Supreme Court, BIA or Attorney General precedent or a published circuit opinion; ImmCite's status does not review them.