Mandamus decisions / Middle District of Georgia

PATEL v. US CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATIONS SERVICES

Middle District of GeorgiaC. Ashley RoyalDecided July 22, 2026No. 5:25-cv-00283

Read the decision Original 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 of the date of filing his Complaint, USCIS had taken no action on the applications, which had been pending for four months.
Form or filing	I-765 (EAD); I-918 (U visa) Read by a model According to the Complaint, Plaintiff submitted an I-918 Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status on February 19, 2025.3 He also filed a Form I-765 for work authorization.
What the suit asked for	Decide the application Read by a model Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, alleging Defendant had unreasonably delayed ruling on his petitions and seeking this Court to compel Defendant to adjudicate his petitions.
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 9] is GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Motion decided	Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model Motion to Dismiss pro se Plaintiff Kalpeshkumar Patel’s Complaint as moot because Plaintiff has withdrawn all of his applications for U Nonimmigrant Status, and thus, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 9] is GRANTED.
Disposition	Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model Thus, Plaintiff’s claims are moot, and this case must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Prevailing party	Neither side Read by a model Thus, Plaintiff’s claims are moot, and this case must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The delay claim	Moot: the agency acted Read by a model Here, Plaintiff’s claims are moot because he has withdrawn his applications, and thus, he has no pending applications for relief.
Months pending	4.4 months from the application to the suit The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model According to the Complaint, Plaintiff submitted an I-918 Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status on February 19, 2025.
TRAC factors	The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings	Held moot Read by a model Here, Plaintiff’s claims are moot because he has withdrawn his applications, and thus, he has no pending applications for relief.
U visa claims	Final decision: moot: the agency acted; Work permit: moot: the agency acted Read by a model Here, Plaintiff’s claims are moot because he has withdrawn his applications, and thus, he has no pending applications for relief.
Nationality	India Read by a model Plaintiff is a citizen and national of India

How the case ended

Docket: No. 5:25-cv-00283
Filed: July 3, 2025
Ended: July 22, 2026
Suit's filing to its end: 384 days
How it ended: Ended once the agency acted
From the record: terminated; no disposition recorded

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

Supreme Court and Eleventh 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.

Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55

Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Kanapuram v. Director, USCIS, 131 F.4th 1302

Eleventh Circuit, March 20, 2025. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) strips district courts of jurisdiction over APA unreasonable-delay claims about pending adjustment applications where the delay is part of the discretionary adjudication process, including retrogression holds.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 2 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-02; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.