Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Missouri

Tokas v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Eastern District of MissouriSarah E. PitlykDecided December 6, 2025No. 4:25-cv-01754

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
USCIS issued a prima facie determination confirming Plaintiff’s basic eligibility but has not adjudicated the immigration petition.
Form or filing I-360 (special immigrant petition); I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
He seeks adjudication of both a Form I-360 VAWA Self Petition and a Form I-484 Adjustment of Status Request.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Here, Plaintiff no longer seeks expedited humanitarian review of his petition but seeks a Court order compelling USCIS to adjudicate his immigration petition “within a reasonable time set by the Court.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is DISMISSED with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The court on its own Read by a model
On review of Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court finds that 8 U.S.C. § 1252 deprives it of subject matter jurisdiction over this matter.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is DISMISSED with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is DISMISSED with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is DISMISSED with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
Months pending 12.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff filed a Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) self-petition with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on November 20, 2024, alleging domestic abuse, discrimination, and homelessness.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied; Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model
On review of Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court finds that 8 U.S.C. § 1252 deprives it of subject matter jurisdiction over this matter.

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
Tokas v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration ServicesThis decision December 6, 2025 Sarah E. Pitlyk Dismissed
Tokas v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services et alThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted April 24, 2026 Sarah E. Pitlyk Granted in the applicant's favor

How the case ended

Docket
No. 4:25-cv-01754
Filed
December 2, 2025
Ended
December 6, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
4 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 3 (dismissed: lack of jurisdiction)

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 Eighth 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.