Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Lancesoft Inc. v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

District of ColumbiaEllen Segal HuvelleDecided December 20, 2010

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,914 written decisions from 2,661 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 1:24 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 1,606 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,371 (85%), measured November 3, 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
First, they claim that USCIS had a duty to treat their Form I-290B as a motion to reopen and render decision on it accordingly.
Form or filing I-290B Read by a model
Plaintiffs claim that defendant should have treated their Form I-290B as a motion to reopen and ruled on it accordingly.
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
First, they claim that USCIS had a duty to treat their Form I-290B as a motion to reopen and render decision on it accordingly.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Before the Court is defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), respectively.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), respectively.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ claim to compel agency action under the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. 1361, and APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(1), will be dismissed for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Their claim that the TSC Director acted arbitrarily and capriciously under the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
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

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.