Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Virginia

DANIEL v. WOLF

Eastern District of VirginiaRossie D. Alston, JrDecided September 23, 2021

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 filed this matter on September 20, 2020, seeking an order compelling the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to adjudicate his Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, which he submitted on April 18, 2017.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Plaintiff’s Complaint specifically seeks an order compelling Defendants to adjudicate his asylum application
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 4) is GRANTED and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 5) is DENIED as MOOT.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Summary judgment Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 4) is GRANTED and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 5) is DENIED as MOOT.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 4) is GRANTED and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 5) is DENIED as MOOT.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
This case is hereby DISMISSED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 4) is GRANTED
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The Court therefore concludes that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) precludes the Court’s review of this matter and that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss should be granted on that basis alone.
Months pending 41.1 months from the application to the suit; 53.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
which he submitted on April 18, 2017.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied Read by a model
The Court therefore concludes that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) precludes the Court’s review of this matter and that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss should be granted on that basis alone.

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 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.