Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Vermont

Regil Jesus v. Jaddou

District of VermontGeoffrey W. CrawfordDecided June 13, 2024No. 2:23-cv-00034

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
Plaintiffs are individuals who have applied to USCIS for U visas, and their Complaint arises from USCIS' s application processing decisions and alleged delays in connection with Plaintiffs' U visa applications.
Form or filing I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
Plaintiffs are individuals who have applied to USCIS for U visas, and their Complaint arises from USCIS' s application processing decisions and alleged delays in connection with Plaintiffs' U visa applications.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Count 1, which is brought by Pisgah and domestic plaintiffs who have yet to receive BFDs, is a claim that USCIS has unreasonably delayed BFDs.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendant's motion to dismiss is brought under both Rules 12(b)(l) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendant Ur M. Jaddou, in her official capacity as Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"), moves to dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
Domestic Plaintiffs who have received a BFD and who seek a WLD have standing to pursue their claims.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Domestic Plaintiffs who have received a BFD and who seek a WLD have standing to pursue their claims.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Domestic Plaintiffs who have received a BFD and who seek a WLD have standing to pursue their claims.
Months pending Not stated at filing 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
The wait for a bona fide determination is approximately five years.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
The government's delay arguments Visa availability rejected Read by a model
The court is not convinced by Defendant's position on the question of redressability with respect to an Article III standing analysis for Pisgah.
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
The claims of the Overseas Plaintiffs who have been granted "conditionally authorized parole" are moot.
U visa claims Bona fide determination: goes on; Other U visa claim: goes on; Waiting list: goes on Read by a model
Pisgah likewise has standing to pursue its claims.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:23-cv-00034
Filed
February 2, 2023
Ended
September 21, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
1,327 days
How it ended
Ended, outcome not recorded
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 Second 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.