Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Massachusetts

Pataud v. USCIS Boston Field Office

District of MassachusettsNathaniel M. GortonDecided November 20, 2020No. 1:20-cv-10690

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
USCIS Boston denied Pataud’s application in May, 2019, on the ground that she had fraudulently misrepresented her marital status in her Form DS-160.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
USCIS Boston denied Pataud’s application in May, 2019, on the ground that she had fraudulently misrepresented her marital status in her Form DS-160.
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
Pataud filed her complaint in this Court in April, 2020, seeking a writ of mandamus compelling defendants to provide her with her Form DS-160 (Count I) and reversal of the Final Decision pursuant to the APA and the Fifth Amendment (Counts II and III).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the forgoing reasons, the motion of defendants USCIS Boston and Michael J. McCleary to dismiss the complaint (Docket No. 14) is ALLOWED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Because defendant’s contentions with respect to plaintiff’s constitutional claim are more aptly considered under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) than 12(b)(1), this Court will treat the subject motion as one to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Pending before the Court is defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the forgoing reasons, the motion of defendants USCIS Boston and Michael J. McCleary to dismiss the complaint (Docket No. 14) is ALLOWED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the forgoing reasons, the motion of defendants USCIS Boston and Michael J. McCleary to dismiss the complaint (Docket No. 14) is ALLOWED.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Accordingly, plaintiff’s request for a writ of mandamus will be denied as moot.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
For the forgoing reasons, the motion of defendants USCIS Boston and Michael J. McCleary to dismiss the complaint (Docket No. 14) is ALLOWED.
Months pending 44 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
Another USCIS Boston decision denying Pataud’s application was issued in October, 2019 (“the Final Decision”).
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Furthermore, plaintiff’s mandamus claim with respect to the Form DS-160 is moot.
Nationality Haiti Read by a model
Pataud is a citizen of Haiti who resides and works in Massachusetts.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:20-cv-10690
Filed
April 8, 2020
Ended
November 23, 2020
Suit's filing to its end
229 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. 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.