Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Virginia

Patel v. Noem

Eastern District of VirginiaRoderick C. YoungDecided August 21, 2026No. 3:25-cv-00961

Read the decisionOriginal 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
Both claims arise from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service’s (“USCIS”) alleged failure to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ pending Applications for Employment Authorization.
Form or filing I-765 (EAD) Read by a model
unlawfully delayed adjudication of their Applications for Employment Authorization (Form I-765).
What the suit asked for Issue a work permit Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ requested relief is limited to an order compelling Defendants to adjudicate their pending Applications for Employment Authorization.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons detailed above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss will be granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
For the reasons that follow, the Court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction, and therefore it will grant Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The case is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Accordingly, Gonzalez controls here, and Plaintiffs’ APA and mandamus claims must be dismissed without prejudice5 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons detailed above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss will be granted.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, Gonzalez controls here, and Plaintiffs’ APA and mandamus claims must be dismissed without prejudice5 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
Months pending 17.3 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiffs, a family of four, filed various submissions with USCIS on or about March 12, 2025.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
U visa claims Work permit: dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, Gonzalez controls here, and Plaintiffs’ APA and mandamus claims must be dismissed without prejudice5 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:25-cv-00961
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 16)
Filed
November 20, 2025
Status
Pending as of the last docket check

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

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

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.