Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Tennessee

Patel v. Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Eastern District of TennesseeThomas A VarlanDecided July 21, 2026No. 3:25-cv-00338

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
However, the evidence before the Court clearly indicates that USCIS has now made determinations as to both the I-918 Petition and the 1-765 Form [Doc. 11-1].
Form or filing I-765 (EAD); I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
On January 27, 2025, plaintiff filed a complete I-918 Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status [Id. at 3].
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Specifically, USCIS states that the complaint seeks adjudication of plaintiff’s deferred action, bona fide Employment Authorization and wait list determination based on his U-1 Nonimmigrant Status, and such was done on August 15, 2025 [Id. at 2–3].
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, USCIS’s motion to dismiss [Doc. 10] will be GRANTED and this case will be DISMISSED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
USCIS now moves to dismiss the complaint in this case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction due to mootness [Doc. 11, p. 1].
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
This civil action is before the Court on defendant United States Customs and Immigration Enforcement’s (“USCIS”) motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction due to mootness [Doc. 10].
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
Accordingly, “the government [has] fully discharge[d] its clear duty to adjudicate [the] application for an immigration benefit[,]” and this action is therefore moot.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
Accordingly, “the government [has] fully discharge[d] its clear duty to adjudicate [the] application for an immigration benefit[,]” and this action is therefore moot.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Accordingly, “the government [has] fully discharge[d] its clear duty to adjudicate [the] application for an immigration benefit[,]” and this action is therefore moot.
Months pending 6.6 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
Specifically, USCIS states that the complaint seeks adjudication of plaintiff’s deferred action, bona fide Employment Authorization and wait list determination based on his U-1 Nonimmigrant Status, and such was done on August 15, 2025 [Id. at 2–3].
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Accordingly, “the government [has] fully discharge[d] its clear duty to adjudicate [the] application for an immigration benefit[,]” and this action is therefore moot.
U visa claims Bona fide determination: moot: the agency acted; Work permit: moot: the agency acted; Waiting list: moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Specifically, USCIS states that the complaint seeks adjudication of plaintiff’s deferred action, bona fide Employment Authorization and wait list determination based on his U-1 Nonimmigrant Status, and such was done on August 15, 2025 [Id. at 2–3].
Nationality India Read by a model
In his complaint, plaintiff, proceeding pro se, alleges that he is a citizen of India currently residing in Tennessee [Doc. 1, pp. 2–3].

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:25-cv-00338
Filed
July 15, 2025
Ended
July 21, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
371 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. Other suits in this court.

Supreme Court and Sixth 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.