Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Illinois

Correa Garcia v. Noem

Northern District of IllinoisSharon Johnson ColemanDecided June 26, 2026No. 1:25-cv-07864

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
To date, USCIS has not made a decision on their U-Visa petition, Plaintiffs have received no communication regarding final adjudication of the petition or BFD, nor have they been instructed to provide any further documentation to USCIS.
Form or filing I-765 (EAD); I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
Plaintiffs move the Court to direct DHS and USCIS to place them on the waiting list in relation to their Form I-918 Petitions for U Nonimmigrant Status (“U-Visa”) or to conduct bona fide determinations and issue work authorizations.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs move the Court to direct DHS and USCIS to place them on the waiting list in relation to their Form I-918 Petitions for U Nonimmigrant Status (“U-Visa”) or to conduct bona fide determinations and issue work authorizations.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [13].
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Petition (“Motion”) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Petition (“Motion”) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For these reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Petition for Writ of Mandamus, Declaratory Judgment, and Other Relief [13] is granted.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For these reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Petition for Writ of Mandamus, Declaratory Judgment, and Other Relief [13] is granted.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For these reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Petition for Writ of Mandamus, Declaratory Judgment, and Other Relief [13] is granted.
Months pending 22.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On or about August 19, 2024, Maria filed a U-Visa petition and included her husband, Paulo, as a derivative on her application.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Plaintiffs provided no facts to contextualize their position in line relative to other petitioners waiting for their claims, the Court sees no reason to grant mandamus relief.
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied Read by a model
the Court determines § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)’s jurisdictional bar applies to Plaintiff’s claims of unreasonable delay regarding both their EAD and BFD applications, since such determinations are discretionary.
U visa claims Bona fide determination: dismissed under 1252(a)(2)(b); Work permit: dismissed under 1252(a)(2)(b); Waiting list: dismissed Read by a model
the Court determines § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)’s jurisdictional bar applies to Plaintiff’s claims of unreasonable delay regarding both their EAD and BFD applications, since such determinations are discretionary.
Nationality Mexico Read by a model
Maria is a native and citizen of Mexico

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-07864
Filed
July 11, 2025
Ended
June 26, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
350 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. 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.