Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

PARK v. EDLOW

District of ColumbiaBeryl Alaine HowellDecided July 16, 2026No. 1:26-cv-00504

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
As to the first TRAC factor, the parties do not dispute that the length of time that USCIS processes visa applications is governed by a rule of reason.
Form or filing I-526E (investor petition) Read by a model
Plaintiff paid the appropriate fees and filed the instant I-526E Petition on January 5, 2024, to which USCIS assigned Case Number IOE8079101172.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiff filed the instant complaint on February 17, 2026, seeking “to compel Defendants to make a decision on h[er] long-pending I-526E petition without further unreasonable day.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
The subject-matter jurisdiction challenges brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) are considered first and rejected, and then the challenge for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is considered and found persuasive.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.
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 is granted.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Taking all six TRAC factors together, plaintiff has not stated a claim of unreasonable delay under the Mandamus Act or the APA.
Months pending 25.4 months from the application to the suit; 30.3 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff paid the appropriate fees and filed the instant I-526E Petition on January 5, 2024, to which USCIS assigned Case Number IOE8079101172.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the applicant
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
This factor favors defendants.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Accordingly, no basis is presented to conclude that defendants deviated from their policy other than the length of the delayed adjudication.
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model
Accordingly, neither 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) nor 5 U.S.C. § 701(a) preclude judicial review of plaintiff’s claims presented to this Court.
Nationality South Korea Read by a model
Plaintiff Eun Young Park, a citizen of South Korea,

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:26-cv-00504
Filed
February 17, 2026
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.

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.