Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Illinois

United African Organization v. Biden, Jr.

Northern District of IllinoisEdmond E. ChangDecided August 9, 2022No. 1:22-cv-02599

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 Department of State Read by a model
And the State Department does have a duty to adjudicate diversity-visa applications in a reasonable period of time.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Diversity-visa selectees must fill out Form DS- 260, an online application for an immigrant visa.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Instead, the Plaintiffs seek only to compel the government to adjudicate the applications on time and to vacate (what the Plaintiffs believe to be) unlawful policies that are slowing down the adjudications.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The motion for preliminary injunction is denied.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO; Transfer Read by a model
With UAO properly in the case as a named Plaintiff, the government’s request to transfer venue to the District of Columbia, Defs.’ Resp., R. 39 at 28 n.16, is denied.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
To beat the clock, the Plaintiffs move for a preliminary injunction.
Disposition Denied in the government's favor The principal motion was denied in full: relief the plaintiff asked for denied on the merits, such as summary judgment, an injunction or fees. The government's motion denied so the case goes on is listed apart. Read by a model
The motion for preliminary injunction is denied.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The motion for preliminary injunction is denied.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
The motion for preliminary injunction is denied.
The other claims Relief denied Read by a model
The motion for preliminary injunction is denied.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
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 applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
Here, both of these considerations favor the government on the current record.
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model
The APA’s jurisdiction-stripping provision invoked by the government, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B), Defs.’ Resp. at 30, applies only to discretionary decisions granting or denying specific relief; those are not the types of decisions that the Plaintiffs are targeting here.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:22-cv-02599
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 54)
Filed
May 17, 2022
Ended
October 13, 2022
Suit's filing to its end
149 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 12 (dismissed: voluntarily)

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 Seventh 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.