Mandamus decisions / Western District of North Carolina

Numan Sirin v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

Western District of North CarolinaKenneth D. BellDecided April 9, 2026No. 3:25-cv-00827

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	Not recorded Read by a model
Form or filing	None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for	Not recorded Read by a model
Kind of order	A procedural order Read by a model the Court will consider Plaintiff’s filing to include a motion for leave to file the Amended Petition and GRANT that motion, thereby allowing the Amended Petition to be filed and become Plaintiff’s operative pleading.
Motion decided	Other motion to dismiss Read by a model With the filing of an Amended Petition, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 15) is DENIED as moot.
Whose motion	The court on its own Read by a model THIS MATTER is before the Court on its own motion regarding pro se Plaintiff’s Amended Petition for Writ of Mandamus (Doc. No. 19).
Disposition	Procedural order A scheduling, briefing, stay, show-cause or other procedural order. Not counted as either side's win. Read by a model the Court will consider Plaintiff’s filing to include a motion for leave to file the Amended Petition and GRANT that motion, thereby allowing the Amended Petition to be filed and become Plaintiff’s operative pleading.
Prevailing party	Neither side Read by a model the Court will consider Plaintiff’s filing to include a motion for leave to file the Amended Petition and GRANT that motion, thereby allowing the Amended Petition to be filed and become Plaintiff’s operative pleading.
The delay claim	Not decided here Read by a model Defendants are directed to file an answer or otherwise respond to the Amended Petition within 20 days of this Order.
Months pending	Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors	The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings	None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket: No. 3:25-cv-00827
On the docket: This ruling (ECF 20)
Filed: October 21, 2025
Ended: June 16, 2026
Suit's filing to its end: 238 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. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

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.

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
Gonzalez v. Cuccinelli, 985 F.3d 357

Fourth Circuit, January 14, 2021. Courts may review delay in placing U-visa petitioners on the waitlist under the TRAC factors and should not dismiss such claims at the pleading stage, but lack jurisdiction over delay in pre-waitlist work-permit requests, a point on which the Sixth Circuit disagrees.

ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Rejected in the Sixth Circuit by Barrios Garcia v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 25 F.4th 430 (2022).
Lovo v. Miller, 107 F.4th 199

Fourth Circuit, July 3, 2024. The 'decision or action' language of § 1182(a)(9)(B)(v), which the court treated as coextensive with § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), does not reach USCIS inaction, so a district court may hear a claim that USCIS unreasonably delayed a provisional unlawful-presence waiver.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 5 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-07; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.