Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Virginia
Aslam v. Mukasey
Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener
2,996 written decisions from 2,731 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided November 12, 2026. Updated November 14, 2026 at 1:17 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 1,617 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,406 (87%), 1,039 of them in this group, measured November 14, 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
Specifically, the Court ordered that within eleven (11) days of the filed date of this order, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("CIS") instruct the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") to expedite its processing of plaintiff's name check. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
I-485 (adjustment of status)
Read by a model
plaintiff's application for adjustment of status |
| What the suit asked for |
Decide the application
Read by a model
the Court held that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("CIS") had unreasonably delayed in adjudicating plaintiff's application for adjustment of status and compelled specific agency action |
| Kind of order |
A procedural order
Read by a model
For these reasons, defendants' Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Possible Appeal will be DENIED and defendants' Motion for Enlargement of Time Within Which to Comply With Injunctive Order will be GRANTED. |
| Motion decided | None Read by a model |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
The government has filed an Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Possible Appeal [4 6] |
| Disposition |
Procedural order
A scheduling, briefing, stay, show-cause or other procedural order. Not counted as either side's win.
Read by a model
For these reasons, defendants' Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Possible Appeal will be DENIED and defendants' Motion for Enlargement of Time Within Which to Comply With Injunctive Order will be GRANTED. |
| Prevailing party |
Neither side
Read by a model
For these reasons, defendants' Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Possible Appeal will be DENIED and defendants' Motion for Enlargement of Time Within Which to Comply With Injunctive Order will be GRANTED. |
| The delay claim |
Not decided here
Read by a model
For these reasons, defendants' Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Possible Appeal will be DENIED and defendants' Motion for Enlargement of Time Within Which to Comply With Injunctive Order will be GRANTED. |
| Months pending | Not stated Read by a model |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings | None Read by a model |
Other orders in this case
The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision, this one. How decisions are grouped into cases.
| Decision | Decided | Judge | Disposition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aslam v. Mukasey | January 25, 2008 | Leonie M. Brinkema | Granted in part |
| Aslam v. MukaseyThis decisionThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted | February 4, 2008 | Leonie M. Brinkema | Procedural order |
How the case ended
This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.
Supreme Court and Fourth 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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.
-
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55
Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Gonzalez v. Cuccinelli, 985 F.3d 357
Fourth Circuit, January 14, 2021. Courts may review delay in placing U-visa petitioners on the waitlist under the TRAC factors and should not dismiss such claims at the pleading stage, but lack jurisdiction over delay in pre-waitlist work-permit requests, a point on which the Sixth Circuit disagrees.
ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Rejected in the Sixth Circuit by Barrios Garcia v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 25 F.4th 430 (2022).
-
Lovo v. Miller, 107 F.4th 199
Fourth Circuit, July 3, 2024. The 'decision or action' language of § 1182(a)(9)(B)(v), which the court treated as coextensive with § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), does not reach USCIS inaction, so a district court may hear a claim that USCIS unreasonably delayed a provisional unlawful-presence waiver.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 5 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-07; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.