Mandamus decisions / Western District of Virginia

Hernandez Vasquez v. Mayorkas

Western District of VirginiaMichael F. UrbanskiDecided September 13, 2021No. 5:20-cv-00025

Read the decision Original 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 USCIS, through its Vermont Service Center, confirmed its receipt of her application on June 30, 2016.
Form or filing	I-918 (U visa) Read by a model Plaintiff filed a petition for a U-Visa, also known as a 1-918, on June 21, 2016.
What the suit asked for	Decide the application Read by a model order USCIS to “make a ‘waiting list’ adjudication on Plaintiff's application, permitting her to apply for lawful employment authorization”
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model For these reasons, the defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 14, will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Motion decided	Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model For these reasons, the defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 14, will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model The defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs complaint undet Rule 12(b)(1)
Disposition	Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model Plaintiffs claims regarding the delayed adjudication of her U-Visa petition will survive
Prevailing party	Each side in part Read by a model Plaintiffs claims regarding the delayed adjudication of her U-Visa petition will survive
The delay claim	The delay claim goes on Read by a model Plaintiffs claims regarding the delayed adjudication of her U-Visa petition will survive
Months pending	45.4 months from the application to the suit; 62.8 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model Plaintiff filed a petition for a U-Visa, also known as a 1-918, on June 21, 2016.
TRAC factors	The court weighed the TRAC factors 1. Rule of reasonnot reached 2. Congressional timetablenot reached 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant 4. Competing prioritiesnot reached 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant 6. No impropriety needednot reached Read by a model Plaintiff has pled sufficient facts to show that the agency’s delay implicates weighty interests related to her health and welfare.
Threshold rulings	None Read by a model
U visa claims	Work permit: dismissed; Waiting list: goes on Read by a model Plaintiffs claims as they relate to pre-waiting-list work authorization, must be dismissed.
Nationality	Honduras Read by a model Plaintiff is a native and citizen of Honduras

How the case ended

Docket: No. 5:20-cv-00025
Filed: April 3, 2020
Ended: May 19, 2022
Suit's filing to its end: 776 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.

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.

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 2026-10-29; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.