Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Missouri

Patel v. Director U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Eastern District of MissouriAbbie Crites-LeoniDecided January 20, 2026No. 1:25-cv-00114

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
To date, USCIS has taken no action on any of Plaintiff’s applications.
Form or filing I-765 (EAD); I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
On October 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed an I-918 Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status (“I-918 Petition”).
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
He therefore requests that this Court, under the APA, declare all delays unreasonable and order USCIS to issue a bona fide determination in 14 days.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6) is granted in part and denied in part.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
This matter is presently before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendant USCIS moves to dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
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
In sum, this Court has both subject-matter jurisdiction and Article III standing over Plaintiff’s WLD claims. Thus, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss will be denied as to Claims 2 and 3 of the Complaint.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
In sum, this Court has both subject-matter jurisdiction and Article III standing over Plaintiff’s WLD claims. Thus, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss will be denied as to Claims 2 and 3 of the Complaint.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
In sum, this Court has both subject-matter jurisdiction and Article III standing over Plaintiff’s WLD claims. Thus, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss will be denied as to Claims 2 and 3 of the Complaint.
Months pending 14.9 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On October 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed an I-918 Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status (“I-918 Petition”).
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model
Because these actions are nondiscretionary, they are not exempted from judicial review under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).
U visa claims Bona fide determination: dismissed; Waiting list: goes on Read by a model
The undersigned agrees that issue preclusion applies with regard to Plaintiff’s BFD claim, but finds that it does not apply to Plaintiff’s waiting list determination (“WLD”) claims.
Nationality India Read by a model
In his Complaint, Plaintiff states that he is a citizen and national of India who currently resides in Kennett, Missouri, and has lived in the United States for approximately five years.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-00114
Filed
June 27, 2025
Ended
February 2, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
220 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
voluntary dismissal 2026-02-03; 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 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.