Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Pennsylvania

DOE v. MAYORKAS

Eastern District of PennsylvaniaJoseph F. Leeson Jr.Decided May 1, 2023No. 5:23-cv-01561

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
“Since the applicable statutes provide USCIS with the sole discretion to determine eligibility for U-Visas, mandamus is not warranted.”
Form or filing I-765 (EAD); I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
The Complaint also asks for an order compelling Defendants to determine Plaintiff’s eligibility for a U-visa or the U-visa waiting list and to adjudicate her application for employment authorization while her U-visa petition remains pending.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
The Complaint also asks for an order compelling Defendants to determine Plaintiff’s eligibility for a U-visa or the U-visa waiting list and to adjudicate her application for employment authorization while her U-visa petition remains pending.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Count III of the Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The court on its own Read by a model
Accordingly, this Court has conducted the required screening of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Disposition Other ruling A ruling none of the other labels describes. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, because the APA provides an adequate remedy for Plaintiff’s claims of undue delay in the adjudication of her U-visa petition, mandamus relief is unavailable. Count III is therefore dismissed with prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Count III of the Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, because the APA provides an adequate remedy for Plaintiff’s claims of undue delay in the adjudication of her U-visa petition, mandamus relief is unavailable. Count III is therefore dismissed with prejudice.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
Accordingly, because the APA provides a remedy for Plaintiff Jane Doe’s complaint of undue delay, mandamus relief under § 1361 is not available.
U visa claims Final decision: goes on; Work permit: goes on; Waiting list: goes on Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, because the APA provides an adequate remedy for Plaintiff’s claims of undue delay in the adjudication of her U-visa petition, mandamus relief is unavailable. Count III is therefore dismissed with prejudice.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 5:23-cv-01561
Filed
April 24, 2023
Ended
July 17, 2023
Suit's filing to its end
84 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
voluntary dismissal 2023-07-18; 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.