Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Massachusetts

Goncalves v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)

District of MassachusettsF. Dennis Saylor IVDecided October 25, 2023No. 1:23-cv-11314

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
According to the government, USCIS denied Goncalves’ Form I-130 petition on August 2, 2023.
Form or filing I-130 (relative petition) Read by a model
According to the government, USCIS denied Goncalves’ Form I-130 petition on August 2, 2023.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
a writ of mandamus compelling the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services to take action on their Form I-130 petition
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is GRANTED.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On August 15, 2023, defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
Accordingly, all claims raised by the complaint appear to be moot.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
Accordingly, all claims raised by the complaint appear to be moot.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Accordingly, all claims raised by the complaint appear to be moot.
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 Held moot Read by a model
Accordingly, all claims raised by the complaint appear to be moot.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-11314
Filed
June 10, 2023
Ended
October 25, 2023
Suit's filing to its end
137 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 3 (dismissed: lack of jurisdiction)

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.