Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Missouri

Prajapati v. Jaddou

Western District of MissouriGreg KaysDecided January 6, 2026No. 4:25-cv-00258

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 USCIS Read by a model
USCIS issued a notice of receipt on October 8, 2024, but has not yet made a determination.
Form or filing I-765 (EAD); I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
On October 4, 2024, Plaintiffs applied for a U Visa and employment authorization documents in accordance with the process outlined above.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
to compel Defendants to make bona fide, employment authorization, and waiting-list determinations, and to grant Plaintiffs deferred action as part of Hirenkumar’s petition for U nonimmigrant status.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Defendants next challenge Plaintiffs’ claim for a WLD on 12(b)(6) grounds, but they invoke ripeness, which speaks to the Court’s jurisdiction, so this motion “is at heart a Rule 12(b)(1) motion.”
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Now before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ petition for mandamus pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) or, alternatively, Rule 12(b)(6).
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
Defendants’ motion is DENIED with respect to Plaintiffs’ waiting list determination claim, so Plaintiffs may proceed on that claim alone.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Defendants’ motion is DENIED with respect to Plaintiffs’ waiting list determination claim, so Plaintiffs may proceed on that claim alone.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Defendants’ motion is DENIED with respect to Plaintiffs’ waiting list determination claim, so Plaintiffs may proceed on that claim alone.
Months pending 6.2 months from the application to the suit; 15.1 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On October 4, 2024, Plaintiffs applied for a U Visa and employment authorization documents in accordance with the process outlined above.
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 finds that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars it from exercising subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims for BFD, EAD, or deferred action under the BFD process.
U visa claims Bona fide determination: dismissed under 1252(a)(2)(b); Work permit: dismissed under 1252(a)(2)(b); Waiting list: goes on Read by a model
the Court finds that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars it from exercising subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims for BFD, EAD, or deferred action under the BFD process.
Nationality India Read by a model
Plaintiff Hirenkumar Prajapati is a native and citizen of India.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 4:25-cv-00258
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 8), deciding the motion (ECF 4)
Filed
April 11, 2025
Status
Pending as of the last docket check

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, and the motion number is read from that entry's text. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.