Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Virginia

Bacanak v. Bondi

Eastern District of VirginiaRossie David Alston Jr.Decided September 24, 2025No. 1:25-cv-00569

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
Plaintiff seeks an order from this Court compelling USCIS to adjudicate his Form 1-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
Plaintiff seeks an order from this Court compelling USCIS to adjudicate his Form 1-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Plaintiff seeks an order from this Court compelling USCIS to adjudicate his Form 1-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion for Summary .ludgment (Dki, 8) is GRANTED;
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 8).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 8).
Disposition Granted in the government's favor The principal motion was granted in full: summary judgment for either side, an injunction or TRO, a writ or order to act, fees. A motion to dismiss granted in full counts as Dismissed; a transfer is listed apart. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion for Summary .ludgment (Dki, 8) is GRANTED;
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter Rule 58 judgment on behalf of Defendants and against Plaintiff
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
Because the TRAC factors weigh in favor of Defendants, the Court finds that there is no unreasonable delay here and that Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Months pending 48.3 months from the application to the suit; 54 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On March 24. 2021, Plaintiff filed his Form 1-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
Aceordingly. the first and second 'TRAC factors weigh in Defendants' favor.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Thus, the information provided by Defendants establishes that the combination LIFO/backlog reduction system provides a rule of reason informed by the statutory scheme.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-00569
Filed
April 2, 2025
Ended
September 24, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
175 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 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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.