Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Virginia

Mohammed v. Holder

Eastern District of VirginiaDecided March 1, 2010No. 1:09-cv-01284

Read the decision Original 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 Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus ordering the USCIS to adjudicate her adjustment of status application, which the USCIS administratively closed on October *289 2, 2006.
Form or filing	I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model Not until January 5, 2006, [9] four years after the I-130 petition was granted, did petitioner file an I-485 application for adjustment of status with the USCIS.
What the suit asked for	Decide the application Read by a model Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus ordering the USCIS to adjudicate her adjustment of status application, which the USCIS administratively closed on October *289 2, 2006.
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model For the reasons stated here, the petition does not present a justiciable case or controversy and therefore respondents' motion to dismiss must be granted.
Motion decided	Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model Shortly thereafter, respondents filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P.
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model Shortly thereafter, respondents filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P.
Disposition	Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model Accordingly, because the petition is moot and fails to present a justiciable case or controversy, it must be dismissed.
Prevailing party	Neither side Read by a model Accordingly, because the petition is moot and fails to present a justiciable case or controversy, it must be dismissed.
The delay claim	Moot: the agency acted Read by a model In this case, the petition for a writ of mandamus is moot because the USCIS has already adjudicated petitioner's application for adjustment of status to the extent permissible under binding federal regulations.
Months pending	46.2 months from the application to the suit; 8.9 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model Based on this information, the USCIS by letter dated October 2, 2006, advised petitioner that her application had been administratively closed.
TRAC factors	The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings	Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied; Held moot Read by a model Notably, § 1252(a)(2)(B) specifically withdraws the jurisdiction conferred by the mandamus statute.
Nationality	Sudan Read by a model Petitioner is a native and citizen of Sudan currently residing in the United States.

How the case ended

Docket: No. 1:09-cv-01284
Filed: November 13, 2009
Ended: March 1, 2010
Suit's filing to its end: 108 days
How it ended: Ended once the agency acted
From the record: idb disp 3 (dismissed: lack of jurisdiction)

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

Supreme Court and Fourth 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.

Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233

Supreme Court, January 20, 2010. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars review only of decisions whose discretionary character is specified by statute, not discretion the agency gives itself by regulation.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328

Supreme Court, May 16, 2022. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars review of any judgment regarding the granting of the listed forms of relief, including the factual findings on which a denial of adjustment rests.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, 604 U.S. 6

Supreme Court, December 10, 2024. Revoking an approved visa petition under § 1155 is a discretionary decision or action that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) places beyond judicial review.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55

Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Gonzalez v. Cuccinelli, 985 F.3d 357

Fourth Circuit, January 14, 2021. Courts may review delay in placing U-visa petitioners on the waitlist under the TRAC factors and should not dismiss such claims at the pleading stage, but lack jurisdiction over delay in pre-waitlist work-permit requests, a point on which the Sixth Circuit disagrees.

ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Rejected in the Sixth Circuit by Barrios Garcia v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 25 F.4th 430 (2022).
Lovo v. Miller, 107 F.4th 199

Fourth Circuit, July 3, 2024. The 'decision or action' language of § 1182(a)(9)(B)(v), which the court treated as coextensive with § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), does not reach USCIS inaction, so a district court may hear a claim that USCIS unreasonably delayed a provisional unlawful-presence waiver.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 5 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-07; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
Kale v. Alfonso-Royals, 139 F.4th 329

Fourth Circuit, June 3, 2025. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), read with § 1255(a), bars review of USCIS's adjudication hold policy for adjustment applications affected by visa retrogression, joining the Third, Fifth, Eighth and Eleventh Circuits.

ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-11-09; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law. The citation index lists 34 other decisions citing it, none a Supreme Court, BIA or Attorney General precedent or a published circuit opinion; ImmCite's status does not review them.