Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Missouri

Velagapudi v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

Eastern District of MissouriStephen R. WelbyDecided September 23, 2022No. 4:22-cv-00295

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
The Court finds it would be premature at this stage of litigation to conclusively accept that the time it has taken the USCIS to adjudicate Plaintiff’s petition was either reasonable or unreasonable.
Form or filing I-526 (investor petition) Read by a model
The one-count complaint sought to compel Defendants to adjudicate his I-526 Immigrant Petition by Alien Entrepreneur (“Form I-526”) pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 555 et seq., 706 et seq.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
For relief, Plaintiff requests the Court to issue an order directing Defendants to adjudicate his Form I-526 within fifteen days, and to direct that his FOIA request be immediately processed and all responsive records be released.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the following reasons, the motion to dismiss will be denied.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to dismiss filed by Defendants United States Citizenship and Immigration Services and Alejandro Mayorkas pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is DENIED.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On June 21, 2022, Defendants filed the instant motion seeking to dismiss Plaintiff’s APA claim (Count I).
Disposition Government's motion denied; the case goes on The government's motion (to dismiss, or for summary judgment) was denied, so the case goes on. Counted as the applicant's ruling; a later decision in the case can still go either way. Read by a model
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to dismiss filed by Defendants United States Citizenship and Immigration Services and Alejandro Mayorkas pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is DENIED.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
The Court finds Plaintiff pleaded sufficient and plausible allegations as to unreasonable delay, which must be accepted as true at this stage of the litigation. The Court will therefore decline to dismiss this case.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
The Court finds Plaintiff pleaded sufficient and plausible allegations as to unreasonable delay, which must be accepted as true at this stage of the litigation. The Court will therefore decline to dismiss this case.
The other claims Not decided here Read by a model
Because Defendants have not argued for dismissal of the FOIA claim, it will not be addressed in the instant Memorandum and Order.
Months pending 4.2 months from the application to the suit; 10.6 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Within the amended complaint, Plaintiff asserts he filed a Form I-526 with the USCIS on or about November 3, 2021.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Australia Read by a model
Plaintiff is an Indian-born, Australian national currently residing in Maryland Heights, Missouri.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 4:22-cv-00295
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 26)
Filed
March 11, 2022
Ended
October 17, 2022
Suit's filing to its end
220 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.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision. 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.