Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Pennsylvania

PATEL v. BARR

Eastern District of PennsylvaniaR. Barclay SurrickDecided November 24, 2020No. 2:20-cv-03856

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 EOIR Read by a model
While the BIA continues to delay ruling on his motions, Patel has no access to judicial review.
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
Rather, Patel is asking the Court to compel the BIA to decide his pending motions and to stay the removal order until the BIA does so.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration will be denied.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration will be denied.
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, Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration will be denied.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration will be denied.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration will be denied.
Months pending 5.3 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
two motions that he filed in June 2020
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

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, this one. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
PATEL v. BARR August 13, 2020 R. Barclay Surrick Government's motion denied; the case goes on
PATEL v. BARRThis decisionThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted November 24, 2020 R. Barclay Surrick Government's motion denied; the case goes on

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:20-cv-03856
Filed
August 7, 2020
Ended
December 21, 2020
Suit's filing to its end
136 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.

Supreme Court and Third 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.