Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Minnesota

Namarra v. Mayorkas

District of MinnesotaJoan N. EricksenDecided February 20, 2013No. 0:12-cv-01792

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
Plaintiffs filed this action on July 24, 2012, seeking to compel USCIS to implement exemptions, apply those exemptions to Plaintiffs, and adjudicate their applications for lawful permanent residency.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
In fact, they appear to acknowledge that USCIS made an affirmative decision to place their I-485 applications on hold, pending a decision regarding the applicability of present and future exemptions.
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
Thus, what Plaintiffs ask in this lawsuit is for the Court to compel USCIS to make a determination about the OLF, or at the very least, to compel USCIS to inform Plaintiffs as to when its inquiry will be complete.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 8] is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Currently before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), and alternatively, motion for summary judgment.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 8] is GRANTED.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 8] is GRANTED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 8] is GRANTED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 8] is GRANTED.
Months pending 100.3 months from the application to the suit; 107.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
In March 2004, she filed a Form 1-485, applying to become a lawful permanent resident.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied Read by a model
Thus, the Secretary has the discretion to place the Plaintiffs’ applications on hold, and this discretion is “specified” under the relevant statutory provisions.
Nationality Ethiopia Read by a model
Plaintiff Elizabeth Namarra is an Ethiopian who was admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant student in 1986.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 0:12-cv-01792
Filed
July 24, 2012
Ended
February 21, 2013
Suit's filing to its end
212 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant

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

Supreme Court and Eighth 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.