Lu v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)

District of NevadaCristina D. SilvaDecided December 19, 2025No. 2:25-cv-01581

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 In the SAP, the petitioners again seek mandamus, declaratory, and injunctive relief to (1) expedite review of their Forms I-130 and I-131 applications, (2) compel expedited determinations of those applications in petitioners’ favor, and (3) order USCIS to explain why prior applications were denied.
Form or filing	I-130 (relative petition); I-131 (travel document) Read by a model Like the first petition, the SAP seeks an order expediting review of the petitioners’ Forms I-130 and I-131 in order to bring X.C., their purported adopted minor child, from China to the United States.
What the suit asked for	Decide the application Read by a model Like the first petition, the SAP seeks an order expediting review of the petitioners’ Forms I-130 and I-131 in order to bring X.C., their purported adopted minor child, from China to the United States.
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model For the reasons set forth herein, I grant the motion to dismiss the SAP without leave to amend.
Motion decided	Other motion to dismiss Read by a model IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the respondents’ motion to dismiss the second amended petition [ECF No. 29] is granted.
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the respondents’ motion to dismiss the second amended petition [ECF No. 29] is granted.
Disposition	Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model For the reasons set forth herein, I grant the motion to dismiss the SAP without leave to amend.
Prevailing party	Government Read by a model The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to enter judgment in favor of the respondents and to close this case.
The delay claim	Dismissed Read by a model IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the respondents’ motion to dismiss the second amended petition [ECF No. 29] is granted.
The other claims	Dismissed Read by a model It also precludes the court from reviewing the applications that have already been denied.
Months pending	7.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model The petitioners’ original Forms I-130 and I-131 had been pending since May 2025
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 Here, § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) precludes the court from ordering the respondents to process the applications.

Other orders in this case

The group holds 4 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.

Decision	Decided	Judge	Disposition
Lu v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)	September 30, 2025	Cristina D. Silva	Dismissed
Lu v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)	October 29, 2025	Cristina D. Silva	Denied in the government's favor
Lu v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)This decision	December 19, 2025	Cristina D. Silva	Dismissed
Lu v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)The case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted	January 20, 2026	Cristina D. Silva	Denied in the government's favor

How the case ended

Docket: No. 2:25-cv-01581
Filed: August 25, 2025
Ended: December 19, 2025
Suit's filing to its end: 116 days
How it ended: Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record: idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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 Ninth 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.

Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233

Supreme Court, January 20, 2010. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars review only of decisions whose discretionary character is specified by statute, not discretion the agency gives itself by regulation.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328

Supreme Court, May 16, 2022. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars review of any judgment regarding the granting of the listed forms of relief, including the factual findings on which a denial of adjustment rests.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, 604 U.S. 6

Supreme Court, December 10, 2024. Revoking an approved visa petition under § 1155 is a discretionary decision or action that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) places beyond judicial review.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
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
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 345 F.3d 683

Ninth Circuit, September 17, 2003. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) covers only discretion specified by statute, so denials of EB-5 investor petitions remain reviewable; the Tenth Circuit declined to follow it, but it binds in the Ninth.

ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Rejected in the Tenth Circuit by Yerkovich v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 990 (2004).
Vega v. USCIS, 65 F.4th 469

Ninth Circuit, April 14, 2023. If a statute makes a decision wholly discretionary, regulations or agency practice cannot make it reviewable or exempt it from § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Independence Mining Co. v. Babbitt, 105 F.3d 502

Ninth Circuit, January 23, 1997. Mandamus and APA § 706(1) claims to compel delayed agency action are analyzed alike under the TRAC factors.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Vaz v. Neal, 33 F.4th 1131

Ninth Circuit, May 9, 2022. Section 706(1) compels only a clear, mandatory and discrete duty that has been unreasonably delayed under TRAC, and the APA's prerequisites go to the merits while § 1331 supplies jurisdiction.

ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-11-03; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law. The citation index lists 144 other decisions citing it, none a Supreme Court, BIA or Attorney General precedent or a published circuit opinion; ImmCite's status does not review them.