Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Illinois

Kothari v. Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Northern District of IllinoisRebecca R. PallmeyerDecided March 17, 2026No. 3:24-cv-50101

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
If the court were to compel USCIS to make WLDs for Plaintiffs, this ruling would make no material difference in addressing Plaintiffs’ alleged injury.
Form or filing I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
One group of Plaintiffs are noncitizens living in the United States who have filed petitions for U nonimmigrant status (“U visa”) and received bona fide determinations (“BFDs”).
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
this group of Plaintiffs claims that United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) has unlawfully withheld or delayed granting them an additional benefit: a waitlist determination.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
USCIS’s motion to dismiss under 12(b)(1) [24] is granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
USCIS’s motion to dismiss under 12(b)(1) [24] is granted.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
USCIS’s motion to dismiss under 12(b)(1) [24] is granted.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
USCIS’s motion to dismiss under 12(b)(1) [24] is granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
USCIS’s motion to dismiss under 12(b)(1) [24] is granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
USCIS’s motion to dismiss under 12(b)(1) [24] is granted.
The other claims Not decided here Read by a model
The court granted USCIS’s motion to dismiss [9] for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on Counts II and III because USCIS’s advanced parole determinations are non-reviewable discretionary decisions.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
U visa claims Waiting list: dismissed Read by a model
they do not have standing to challenge USCIS’s delay in giving them WLDs because the remedy they seek is attenuated from the injury they have suffered.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:24-cv-50101
Filed
March 15, 2024
Ended
March 17, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
732 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2026-03-17 dismisses for want of jurisdiction; 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. Other suits in this court.

Supreme Court and Seventh 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.