Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Massachusetts

Celebi v. Mayorkas

District of MassachusettsNathaniel M. GortonDecided August 9, 2024No. 1:23-cv-12797

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
This case arises out of allegations of plaintiff Vejdi Celebi (“Celebi” or “plaintiff”) that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) has failed to schedule an interview for his asylum application within a reasonable timeframe.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
In 2020, plaintiff filed an application for asylum with USCIS and shortly thereafter, completed the required biometrics.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Plaintiff seeks a writ of mandamus under the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361 , to compel defendants to process his asylum application and, presumably, schedule an interview.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Pending before the Court is defendants’ motion to dismiss (Docket No. 10). For the reasons that follow, the motion will be allowed.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss based on both Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Pending before the Court is defendants’ motion to dismiss (Docket No. 10).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the motion of defendants, Alejandro Mayorkas, Ur Mendoza Jaddou and Meghann Boyle in their official capacities to dismiss plaintiff’s claims (Docket No. 10) is ALLOWED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the motion of defendants, Alejandro Mayorkas, Ur Mendoza Jaddou and Meghann Boyle in their official capacities to dismiss plaintiff’s claims (Docket No. 10) is ALLOWED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the motion of defendants, Alejandro Mayorkas, Ur Mendoza Jaddou and Meghann Boyle in their official capacities to dismiss plaintiff’s claims (Docket No. 10) is ALLOWED.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, defendants’ motion to dismiss claims brought under the APA will be allowed.
Months pending 49.3 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
In 2020, plaintiff filed an application for asylum with USCIS and shortly thereafter, completed the required biometrics.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
Plaintiff has failed to plead facts that reject what courts across the nation have frequently concluded: the LIFO policy is governed by a rule of reason.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Plaintiff has failed to plead facts that reject what courts across the nation have frequently concluded: the LIFO policy is governed by a rule of reason.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Turkey Read by a model
Plaintiff is a Turkish national and an active member of the “Gulen” or “Hizmet” movement.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-12797
Filed
November 16, 2023
Ended
August 16, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
274 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.