Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of New Hampshire

Choupanzadeh v. US Department of Homeland Security, Secretary

District of New HampshireSteven J. McAuliffeDecided June 15, 2026No. 1:26-cv-00277

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
Adhering to the guidance provided in the December, 2025, and January, 2026, Policy Memoranda, USCIS ignored its statutory and regulatory obligations to adjudicate plaintiffs’ applications.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status); I-765 (EAD) Read by a model
On October 22, 2025, Choupanzadeh timely filed Form I-765 to extend his EAD, paying for USCIS’s premium processing services to ensure it was renewed before expiration of the OPT automatic extension on July 19, 2026.
What the suit asked for Issue a work permit Read by a model
Plaintiffs have moved for emergency preliminary injunctive relief because adjudication of their EAD applications is essential to their continued employment in the United States, and, in the case of Sheikh, the viability of her medical residency program.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
their motion for a preliminary injunction is granted, in part.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
their motion for a preliminary injunction is granted, in part.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Plaintiffs have moved for emergency preliminary injunctive relief
Disposition Granted in part The principal motion was granted in part and denied in part. Read by a model
their motion for a preliminary injunction is granted, in part.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
their motion for a preliminary injunction is granted, in part.
The delay claim Relief ordered Read by a model
Defendant(s) (USCIS) shall, within ten (10) days of the date of this order, fully adjudicate the long-pending applications for immigrant benefits filed by plaintiffs
The other claims Not decided here Read by a model
They ask the court to declare that USCIS’s newly minted policies as described in the policy memoranda are arbitrary and capricious, contrary to law, and exceed defendants’ statutory authority, and to grant appropriate relief.
Months pending 5.6 months from the application to the suit; 7.8 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On October 22, 2025, Choupanzadeh timely filed Form I-765 to extend his EAD
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
if USCIS can do so without undue administrative effort that adversely affects consideration of benefit applications from others that have been pending for a longer time, or from those in more precarious situations with respect to imminent harm caused by the government’s unlawful delay.
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model
The government’s argument is utterly unpersuasive because, as noted in Bowser v. Noem, 2026 WL 555624, at *4, “while it is undisputed that the substance of the Attorney General's decision is discretionary, he does not have discretion to decide not to adjudicate at all.”
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Plaintiffs are citizens of Iran who have lawfully resided in the United States since 2021.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:26-cv-00277
Filed
April 9, 2026
Ended
July 15, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
97 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
voluntary dismissal 2026-07-15

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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.