Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Venigalla v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services' Administrative Appeals Office

District of ColumbiaDecided January 20, 2026No. 1:25-cv-00179

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
Plaintiff Divya Venigalla, a citizen of India, challenges the decision of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to reject her appeal of a denial of an immigration benefit.
Form or filing I-290B Read by a model
On September 18, Plaintiff submitted a Form I-290B appeal.
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
First, Plaintiff asks the court to order the AAO to accept her first appeal as timely filed under the doctrine of equitable tolling.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons below, the court will GRANT IN PART and DENY IN PART the Motion.
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 for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants now move to dismiss. See Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 8.
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
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
The other claims Some dismissed, some go on Read by a model
For the reasons below, the court will GRANT IN PART and DENY IN PART the Motion.
Months pending 12.9 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
Approximately a year later, in October 2024, USCIS’s Administrative Appeals Office (“AAO”) rejected Plaintiff’s second appeal as untimely.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality India Read by a model
Plaintiff Divya Venigalla, a citizen of India

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-00179
Filed
January 21, 2025
Status
Pending as of the last docket check

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.