Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Kentucky

Patel v. Cuccinelli

Eastern District of KentuckyKaren K. CaldwellDecided January 8, 2021No. 6:20-cv-00101

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
With this action, the plaintiffs allege unreasonable delays by USCIS at two points in the processing of so-called “U-status” immigration petitions.
Form or filing I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
She filed a petition for U-status on December 22, 2016.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
The plaintiffs’ complaint is that USCIS has unreasonably delayed a decision on whether they are eligible for the U-status visa.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the Court hereby ORDERS that USCIS’s motion to dismiss (DE 11) is GRANTED
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
For all these reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS that USCIS’s motion to dismiss (DE 11) is GRANTED as follows:
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
USCIS moves to dismiss the complaint.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
The Patels’ claim that USCIS has unreasonably delayed adjudication of their petitions for U-status visas (Count II) is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim;
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For all these reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS that USCIS’s motion to dismiss (DE 11) is GRANTED as follows:
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The Patels’ claim that USCIS has unreasonably delayed adjudication of their petitions for U-status visas (Count II) is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim;
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
The Patels’ claim under the Equal Access to Justice Act is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim.
Months pending 48.6 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
She filed a petition for U-status on December 22, 2016.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the applicant
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
The agency’s process of adjudication is guided by a general rule that has some exceptions. This constitutes a rule of reason.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
The agency’s process of adjudication is guided by a general rule that has some exceptions. This constitutes a rule of reason.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
U visa claims Work permit: dismissed; Waiting list: dismissed Read by a model
The Patels’ claim that USCIS has unreasonably delayed granting them work authorizations under 8 U.S.C.§ 1184(p)(6) (Count I) is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction;
Nationality India Read by a model
Plaintiff Sudhaben Pankajkumar Patel is a citizen and national of India

How the case ended

Docket
No. 6:20-cv-00101
Filed
May 6, 2020
Ended
February 24, 2023
Suit's filing to its end
371 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why.

Supreme Court and Sixth 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.