Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

AMS v. SCOTT

District of ColumbiaRandolph Daniel MossDecided March 27, 2026No. 1:25-cv-00476

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,914 written decisions from 2,661 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 1:24 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 1,606 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,371 (85%), measured November 3, 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 “[a]uthority to parole an applicant for admission into the United States under section 212(d)(5) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5), and to issue advance parole documentation” is assigned to the USCIS.
Form or filing I-131 (travel document) Read by a model
Applicants initiate the process by filing two required forms, a Form I-131 and Form I-134, accompanied by documentation supporting their request and a filing fee.
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
Plaintiffs seek an order directing the USCIS “to adjudicate all Plaintiffs’ applications for advance humanitarian parole within 30 days.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
will also GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 18.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Defendants move under Rule 12(b)(1) to dismiss those claims for lack of jurisdiction on two separate grounds.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
will also GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 18.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
must, accordingly, dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
the Court will GRANT Defendants’ Motion for Relief from Local Civil Rule 7(n), Dkt. 17, and will also GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 18.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
must, accordingly, dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
must, accordingly, dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
Months pending 27.9 months from the application to the suit The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
On October 21, 2022, each member of the family submitted applications and filing fees for advance parole in the United States.
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
The Court, accordingly, lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ APA and Mandamus Act claims.
Nationality Afghanistan Read by a model
are fifteen Afghan nationals facing death threats and persecution by the Taliban.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-00476
Filed
February 19, 2025
Ended
March 27, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
401 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
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. Other suits in this court.

Supreme Court and D.C. 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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.