Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of New Hampshire

Perreault v. US Citizenship and Immigration Services

District of New HampshireTalesha L. Saint-MarcDecided October 7, 2025No. 1:25-cv-00171

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 Department of State Read by a model
Because USCIS and the State Department completed their processing of the visa application, this court is no longer able to grant Plaintiff any relief on his unreasonable delay claim against those agencies.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Here, Mr. Perreault filed this action alleging that he and his wife had not received a decision on their visa application since their final interview.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Here, Mr. Perreault filed this action alleging that he and his wife had not received a decision on their visa application since their final interview.
Kind of order A magistrate judge's recommendation Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the magistrate judge recommends that the district judge:
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Preliminary injunction or TRO; Summary judgment Read by a model
the magistrate judge recommends that the district judge: (1) grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 18); (2) deny Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Doc. No. 15); and (3) deny the remaining pending motions (Doc. Nos. 19, 22) as moot.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
(1) grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 18); (2) deny Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Doc. No. 15);
Disposition Magistrate judge's recommendation A magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The district judge decides whether to adopt it, so it is not counted as either side's win. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the magistrate judge recommends that the district judge:
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the magistrate judge recommends that the district judge:
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
The unreasonable delay claim is now moot and subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction to review claims challenging the USCIS decision to revoke its prior approval of the I-130 Petition, and for that reason, Plaintiff’s effort to add supplemental claims relating to that agency’s decision to this case is futile.
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
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
Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction to review claims challenging the USCIS decision to revoke its prior approval of the I-130 Petition, and for that reason, Plaintiff’s effort to add supplemental claims relating to that agency’s decision to this case is futile.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
USCIS’s decision to revoke its prior approval of Plaintiff’s I-130 Petition, upon determining that Mrs. Perreault was not his immediate relative for purposes of obtaining a spousal visa.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-00171
Filed
May 7, 2025
Ended
October 24, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
170 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
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. Other suits in this court.

Supreme Court and First 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.