Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Massachusetts

Patel v. Jaddou

District of MassachusettsIndira TalwaniDecided September 27, 2023No. 4:22-cv-11128

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
All four Forms I-485 have been assigned for processing at USCIS’s Texas Service Center.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
On October 27, 2020, the Patels filed Forms I-485 based on the EB3 preference category.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
And Plaintiffs contend that an order from this court that USCIS adjudicate their pending AOS applications would alleviate the harm incurred by waiting for adjudication.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 59] is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Summary judgment Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 59] is GRANTED. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 58], Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 55]
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
Pending before the court are Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 55] and Rule 56(d) Motion [Doc. No. 65]2 and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 59] and Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 58].
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 59] is GRANTED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 59] is GRANTED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Given this concession and the court’s finding that Plaintiffs’ have failed to state a claim on their first two causes of action for unlawful withholding, Plaintiffs’ third cause of action for unreasonable delay is also dismissed.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, the court grants Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 59] as to Plaintiffs’ unlawful withholding claims (Counts I and II).
Months pending 35 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On October 27, 2020, the Patels filed Forms I-485 based on the EB3 preference category.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
The government's delay arguments Visa availability accepted Read by a model
Section 1255 does not contain a discrete command that USCIS adjudicate an AOS application when there are no available visas to be allocated to an applicant.
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied; Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected; Mootness argument rejected Read by a model
Thus, under § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), this court lacks jurisdiction to review Plaintiffs’ claims.
Nationality India Read by a model
All four Plaintiffs are Indian nationals who have lived in the United States for many years.

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision, this one. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
Patel v. Jaddou September 28, 2022 Indira Talwani Dismissed
Patel v. JaddouThis decisionThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted September 27, 2023 Indira Talwani Dismissed

How the case ended

Docket
No. 4:22-cv-11128
Filed
July 13, 2022
Ended
September 28, 2023
Suit's filing to its end
442 days
How it ended
Ended, outcome not recorded
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for unknown

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 First 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.