Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

GUPTA v. NOEM

District of ColumbiaAmit P. MehtaDecided November 10, 2026No. 1:26-cv-00114

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,948 written decisions from 2,691 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided November 10, 2026. Updated November 11, 2026 at 1:21 p.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 1,632 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,398 (86%), measured November 11, 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
Because USCIS has yet to process these petitions, Plaintiffs filed this suit on January 14, 2026, alleging unreasonable delay.
Form or filing I-526E (investor petition) Read by a model
After meeting the program’s investment requirements, each plaintiff, in 2023, filed a Form I-526E petition.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs seek an order compelling the government to adjudicate their petitions pursuant to the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., and the mandamus statute, 28 U.S.C. § 136, Compl. ¶ 3.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 18, is granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
First, under Rule 12(b)(1), they argue that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over claims regarding the manner and order in which USCIS processes Form I-526E petitions and, relatedly, that the APA precludes judicial review.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 18, is granted.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
The court therefore lacks jurisdiction to review Plaintiffs’ claims and must dismiss without inquiring into their merits.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 18, is granted.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The court therefore lacks jurisdiction to review Plaintiffs’ claims and must dismiss without inquiring into their merits.
Months pending 30.5 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
After meeting the program’s investment requirements, each plaintiff, in 2023, filed a Form I-526E petition.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied; Held moot Read by a model
The court therefore lacks jurisdiction to review Plaintiffs’ claims and must dismiss without inquiring into their merits.
Nationality India Read by a model
Plaintiffs are foreign nationals from India and China who wish to immigrate to the United States with their families.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:26-cv-00114
Filed
January 14, 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 11, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.