Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Virginia

Aslam v. Mukasey

Eastern District of VirginiaLeonie M. BrinkemaDecided January 25, 2008

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
Accordingly, the Court concludes that CIS has a legal obligation to adjudicate Aslam's petition within a reasonable period of time.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
Aslam requests an order requiring CIS to adjudicate his I- 485 application within a particular period of time.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Aslam requests an order requiring CIS to adjudicate his I- 485 application within a particular period of time.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For these reasons, plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART and defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
Both parties have filed cross motions for summary judgment.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
For these reasons, plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART and defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Disposition Granted in part The principal motion was granted in part and denied in part. Read by a model
For these reasons, plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART and defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
For these reasons, plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART and defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
The delay claim Relief ordered Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court will grant plaintiff relief to the extent that it will order CIS to direct the FBI to expedite its processing of Aslam's name check.
Months pending 25.4 months from the application to the suit; 35.1 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On February 21, 2005, he filed a second Form I- 4 85, seeking to adjust his status as a result of his marriage.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the applicant
  • 2. Congressional timetableneutral
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the applicant
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededfavors the applicant
Read by a model
Accordingly, the first TRAC factor weighs heavily in favor of finding the delay in processing Aslam's application unreasonable.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping rejected Read by a model
The government argues that any order directing CIS to complete its adjudication of Aslam's application would be "fundamentally unfair to those who either have waited patiently or lack the resources to institute legal action." That argument has no merit.
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court retains jurisdiction under the APA to determine whether the Secretary has unlawfully delayed or withheld final adjudication of a status adjustment application.

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. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
Aslam v. MukaseyThis decision January 25, 2008 Leonie M. Brinkema Granted in part
Aslam v. MukaseyThe 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.