Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Georgia

Lara Santiago v. Mayorkas

Northern District of GeorgiaMichael L. BrownDecided August 13, 2021No. 1:20-cv-05194

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 United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) typically processes these petitions in the order received.
Form or filing I-765 (EAD); I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
On December 22, 2020, Plaintiffs Juan Antonio Lara Santiago and Norma Emilia Avila Aguilar sued Defendants challenging the delay in adjudicating petitions for bona fide U nonimmigrant status (“U Visa”) and corresponding employment authorization documents (“EADs”).
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
They also ask for a preliminary and permanent injunction requiring Defendants to determine their eligibility for placement on the U-Visa waitlist.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 10).
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
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
Counts II and III are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, while Count I may proceed.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Counts II and III are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, while Count I may proceed.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Counts II and III are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, while Count I may proceed.
Months pending 34.7 months from the application to the suit; 42.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
He filed his U-Visa petition and petition for family member (i.e., Plaintiff Avila Aguilar) on January 30, 2018.
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
This means § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) precludes judicial review.
U visa claims Work permit: dismissed under 1252(a)(2)(b); Waiting list: goes on Read by a model
statute unequivocally gives USCIS the discretion to grant an EAD. This means § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) precludes judicial review.
Nationality Mexico Read by a model
Plaintiffs are natives and citizens of Mexico.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:20-cv-05194
Filed
December 22, 2020
Ended
September 28, 2021
Suit's filing to its end
280 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.

Supreme Court and Eleventh 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.