Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Pennsylvania

DOE v. MAYORKAS

Eastern District of PennsylvaniaJOHN M. GALLAGHERDecided October 28, 2021No. 5:21-cv-02430

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
Four years have passed and the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) has taken no further action.
Form or filing I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
On March 6, 2017, Jane Doe #1 filed a Form I-918 petition for a U Visa, along with a supplemental petition on Jane Doe #2’s behalf.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
She seeks an Order from this Court requiring the Government to make a decision on her application, one way or another.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
In granting the motion in part, we find that the case is properly before us and that Plaintiff has properly stated claims upon which relief can be granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
In granting the motion in part, we find that the case is properly before us and that Plaintiff has properly stated claims upon which relief can be granted.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The Government first moves to dismiss 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
The remainder of Plaintiffs’ claims may proceed.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
The remainder of Plaintiffs’ claims may proceed.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
The remainder of Plaintiffs’ claims may proceed.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
To the extent Count I raises claims concerning the USCIS’ duty to issue employment authorization, those claims are dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Months pending 55.8 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On March 6, 2017, Jane Doe #1 filed a Form I-918 petition for a U Visa, along with a supplemental petition on Jane Doe #2’s behalf.
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; APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
Therefore, to the extent Plaintiffs raise a claim regarding employment authorization, the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to consider the request.
U visa claims Work permit: dismissed under 1252(a)(2)(b); Waiting list: goes on Read by a model
To the extent Count I raises claims concerning the USCIS’ duty to issue employment authorization, those claims are dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Nationality Mexico Read by a model
Plaintiff Jane Doe #1 is a Mexican citizen who entered the United States with her exhusband in 2002.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 5:21-cv-02430
Filed
May 27, 2021
Ended
November 17, 2021
Suit's filing to its end
174 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
stipulated dismissal 2021-11-17; 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 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.