Introduction
Filing a writ of mandamus is a significant legal step for individuals facing unreasonable immigration delays. Once the lawsuit is submitted to federal court, the next phase involves waiting for the government’s response and the court’s decision. Many applicants wonder what happens next: Will their case be approved quickly? Will the government fight the lawsuit? Could
their case be denied? Understanding the post-filing process is crucial to setting realistic expectations.
After a writ of mandamus is filed, the government has a set timeframe—typically 60 days—to respond. The agency may choose to resolve the delay by processing the application, but it could also fight the lawsuit by filing a motion to dismiss. In some cases, a settlement is reached, while in others, the case may proceed to a court hearing. Knowing how courts handle
these cases, the possible government responses, and the potential outcomes will help applicants and their attorneys prepare for what lies ahead.
The Government’s Response to a Writ of Mandamus
Once a writ of mandamus is filed in federal court, the government agency responsible for the delay—whether USCIS, the Department of State, or another entity—is required to respond within a set timeframe, typically 60 days. The agency, through its attorneys at the Department of Justice (DOJ), has several options for handling the lawsuit. The most common response is to process the pending application to resolve the case without further litigation. This happens frequently because the agency often prefers to act rather than engage in a legal battle.
However, the government may also challenge the lawsuit by filing a motion to dismiss, arguing that the delay is not unreasonable or that the court lacks jurisdiction over the matter. In some cases, the government may request additional time to complete processing or negotiate a settlement to avoid a formal court ruling. Each of these responses impacts how the case proceeds, and understanding them can help applicants and their attorneys anticipate the next steps in the legal process.
Processing the Application to Resolve the Lawsuit
One of the most common outcomes after filing a writ of mandamus is that the government agency responsible for the delay—whether USCIS, the Department of State, or another immigration body—simply processes the application to resolve the lawsuit. This happens because, in many cases, the agency would rather act on the application than expend time and resources defending the delay in federal court. Once the lawsuit is filed, the agency may expedite the case, conduct any remaining background checks, schedule necessary interviews, or issue a final decision.
If the application is approved, the lawsuit becomes unnecessary, and the court will dismiss it as “moot”. If the agency denies the application, however, the applicant must consider their next steps, such as filing an appeal or motion to reopen the case. In some situations, the agency may issue a Request for Evidence (RFE) or Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID), meaning that while progress has been made, additional documentation or clarification is required before a final decision is issued.
This resolution is generally beneficial for the applicant, as it prevents the case from remaining stalled indefinitely. However, it is crucial to understand that a writ of mandamus does not guarantee approval—it only forces the agency to act. Therefore, applicants should be prepared for any possible outcome once their case is reviewed.
Filing a Motion to Dismiss
After a writ of mandamus is filed, the government may choose to fight the lawsuit by filing a motion to dismiss instead of processing the delayed application. In this motion, the government argues that the court should reject the case based on legal grounds. Some of the most common arguments used by the government include:
- The delay is not unreasonable – The agency may claim that the delay is within normal processing times or that it is due to legitimate reasons, such as background checks or security concerns.
- The applicant has not exhausted administrative remedies – The government might argue that the applicant should have taken additional steps, such as submitting service requests, contacting a congressional office, or requesting an expedited review, before resorting to a lawsuit.
- The court lacks jurisdiction – Immigration law grants agencies broad discretion in processing applications, and the government may argue that a court does not have the authority to intervene in certain cases, such as those involving consular processing delays.
If the court agrees with the government’s motion to dismiss, the case is thrown out, and the applicant will need to explore alternative options to move their immigration case forward.
However, if the court denies the motion to dismiss, the lawsuit continues, and the agency may be forced to take action on the delayed application. Because the government often relies on procedural arguments to dismiss mandamus cases, applicants should ensure they have a strong legal foundation before filing and work with an experienced attorney to counter
dismissal attempts.
Requesting Additional Time from the Court
In some cases, instead of immediately processing the application or filing a motion to dismiss, the government may request additional time from the court to complete the pending immigration case. This is typically done when the agency acknowledges the delay but argues that it needs more time due to administrative backlogs, security clearances, or case complexity.
When the government makes such a request, the court will evaluate whether the delay is justified. If the agency provides a valid reason—such as an ongoing background check or the need to coordinate with other government entities—the court may grant an extension, giving the agency more time to act. However, if the court finds that the delay is excessive or unjustified, it may deny the request and continue with the lawsuit.
For applicants, a government request for additional time can be frustrating, as it prolongs the resolution of their case. However, it is often a sign that the agency is at least actively working on the application, and in many instances, the case is processed within the additional time granted by the court. Applicants should work closely with their attorneys to monitor the government’s response and ensure that the agency does not use this extension as an excuse for further delays.
How Courts Handle Mandamus Lawsuits
Once the government responds to a writ of mandamus, the case moves forward in federal court. The court’s role is to determine whether the government’s delay is unreasonable under the law. Unlike an immigration agency, the court does not evaluate the merits of the applicant’s case—its only concern is whether the agency has taken too long to act.
- A federal judge reviews the lawsuit, the government’s response, and relevant immigration laws, including the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which requires agencies to act within a reasonable time.
- The burden of proof is on the applicant to show that the delay is excessive and has caused unnecessary hardship. The government does not have to prove that the delay is reasonable; instead, the applicant must demonstrate that the agency has failed in its duty to act.
- The court may hold a hearing if necessary, where both sides present arguments. At this hearing, the judge may question attorneys from both sides to determine whether the delay is justified.
If the judge finds that the delay is unjustified, they may issue an order compelling the agency to process the case. However, it is important to understand that the court cannot order the agency to approve the application—it can only require the agency to make a decision. This means that while a writ of mandamus may force movement in a stalled case, the final decision
could still be an approval, denial, or request for additional evidence.
Possible Outcomes of a Writ of Mandamus Case
After a writ of mandamus is filed and the government responds, the case can move in several directions. The final outcome depends on whether the government chooses to process the application, fight the lawsuit, or negotiate a resolution. Below are the most common ways a mandamus case can conclude.
The Government Approves or Denies the Application
In many cases, the filing of a writ of mandamus prompts the agency to finally process the delayed application. This can lead to two possible results:
- Approval – If the agency grants the visa, green card, or other requested immigration benefit, the lawsuit is no longer necessary, and the case is dismissed as “moot”.
- Denial – If the agency denies the application, the applicant may need to file an appeal, a motion to reopen, or reapply depending on the nature of the denial.
Since a writ of mandamus does not force approval, applicants should be prepared for any decision once the agency reviews their case.
The Government’s Motion to Dismiss is Granted
If the government argues that the delay is not unreasonable, it may file a motion to dismiss the case. If the judge agrees, the lawsuit is dismissed, and the applicant must explore alternative options, such as:
- Waiting for the agency to process the application on its own timeline.
- Filing additional administrative inquiries or congressional requests.
- Seeking other legal remedies, including re-filing the mandamus petition if delays persist.
Dismissals are common when the court believes that the agency has provided a valid justification for the delay or when the judge determines that the applicant has not exhausted all administrative remedies before filing the lawsuit.
The Case Proceeds to a Court Hearing
If the government does not take action on the application and its motion to dismiss is denied, the case may move forward to a court hearing.
The judge will hear arguments from both sides—the applicant’s attorney will explain why the delay is unreasonable, while the government’s attorneys will defend the agency’s timeline.- The court may ask for additional evidence or clarifications before making a final ruling.
- If the judge rules in favor of the applicant, they may issue an order compelling the agency to act on the application within a specific time frame.
- If the judge rules in favor of the government, the case will be dismissed, and the applicant may need to pursue other options.
Hearings are less common, as most mandamus cases are resolved before reaching this stage.
Settlement or Agreement Before a Ruling
To avoid a formal court ruling, the government may negotiate a resolution with the applicant. This often results in an agreement where the agency commits to processing the application within a set timeframe, leading to the lawsuit being voluntarily withdrawn.
Settlements are beneficial because:
- They speed up processing without the need for prolonged litigation.
- They give the applicant a clear timeline for when their case will be resolved.
- They allow the government to avoid setting legal precedents that might encourage other applicants to file similar lawsuits.
While not guaranteed, settlements are a common outcome in writ of mandamus cases, as they provide a practical resolution for both sides.
The outcome of a writ of mandamus case depends on multiple factors, including the strength of the legal arguments, the government’s response, and the court’s decision. Applicants should be prepared for any of these scenarios and work closely with an attorney to develop a strategy for their specific situation.
How Long Does the Process Take?
The timeline for a writ of mandamus lawsuit varies depending on several factors, including how the government responds and whether the case proceeds to a court hearing. While some cases are resolved quickly, others may take several months or longer.
In most cases, the government has 60 days to respond to the lawsuit. This is the standard timeframe for federal agencies to reply in civil cases.- If the agency chooses to process the application rather than fight the lawsuit, the case may be resolved within a few months. This is the most common outcome, as many agencies prefer to act rather than engage in litigation.
- If the government files a motion to dismiss or contests the case, the process can take much longer. A court hearing may be required, adding several months or more to the timeline.
Factors That Affect the Timeline:
- The Court’s Schedule – Federal courts have busy dockets, and the speed at which a judge reviews a case varies by district. Some courts handle cases more quickly than others.
- The Agency’s Workload – If USCIS or the State Department is experiencing backlogs, even a mandamus lawsuit may not result in immediate action. However, the agency is still required to respond.
- Whether a Hearing Is Required – If the judge decides a hearing is necessary, the case could take longer, as both sides will need to prepare and present arguments.
While many writ of mandamus cases are resolved within 3 to 6 months, more complex cases or those that go to court may take longer. Applicants should be prepared for varying timelines and work closely with their attorney to navigate the process efficiently.
What If the Writ of Mandamus Is Denied?
A court denial of a writ of mandamus does not necessarily mean the end of the road for an applicant. While it can be discouraging, there are still several options to consider depending on the reason for the denial.
- Filing an appeal – If there are strong legal grounds, the applicant may appeal the court’s decision to a higher court. Appeals are complex and require demonstrating that the lower court made a legal or procedural error.
- Refiling the lawsuit later – If the delay persists or worsens over time, an applicant may be able to refile the mandamus petition with stronger evidence that the delay has become unreasonable.
- Exploring administrative solutions – Even after a denial, applicants can still pursue other options such as:
o Submitting service requests with USCIS.
o Requesting assistance from a congressional office to intervene.
o Contacting the USCIS Ombudsman for help in resolving the delay.
A denial does not mean the case is permanently lost, but it does indicate that the court was not convinced that the delay warranted judicial intervention at that time. Applicants should carefully assess their next steps with an immigration attorney to determine the best legal strategy moving forward.