Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Wisconsin

Lai v. US Department of Homeland Security

Eastern District of WisconsinWilliam C GriesbachDecided December 12, 2024No. 1:24-cv-01140

Read the decision Original 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 USCIS did not reach a decision on Petitioner’s application for several months.
Form or filing	N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model On October 24, 2024, USCIS issued a decision denying Petitioner’s naturalization application.
What the suit asked for	Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model Petitioner’s petition for a de novo naturalization hearing sought, in the alternative, an order remanding to USCIS for a prompt decision.
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondents’ motion to remand (Dkt. No. 5) is GRANTED.
Motion decided	Remand under 1447(b) Read by a model IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondents’ motion to remand (Dkt. No. 5) is GRANTED.
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondents’ motion to remand (Dkt. No. 5) is GRANTED.
Disposition	Remanded to the agency Sent back to the agency, with or without instructions. Read by a model This matter is remanded to USCIS with instructions to make a decision on Petitioner’s naturalization application within 14 days of the date of this order.
Prevailing party	Applicant Read by a model This matter is remanded to USCIS with instructions to make a decision on Petitioner’s naturalization application within 14 days of the date of this order.
The delay claim	Remanded to the agency Read by a model This matter is remanded to USCIS with instructions to make a decision on Petitioner’s naturalization application within 14 days of the date of this order.
Months pending	Not stated A section 1447(b) suit: these months run from the naturalization application. The statute's 120 days run from the interview, which they do not measure. Read by a model
Months since the naturalization interview	9.7 months from the interview (2024-01-02) Read by a model Petitioner Junliang Lai, a native of China, applied for United States citizenship and was interviewed by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on January 2, 2024, to determine his eligibility for naturalization.
TRAC factors	The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings	None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket: No. 1:24-cv-01140
Filed: September 9, 2024
Ended: December 12, 2024
Suit's filing to its end: 94 days
How it ended: Remanded to the agency
From the record: remand order 2024-12-12; idb disp 11 (remanded to U.S. agency)

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 Seventh 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
Klene v. Napolitano, 697 F.3d 666

Seventh Circuit, October 12, 2012. Section 1429 is not jurisdictional, and a district court reviewing a naturalization denial under § 1421(c) may consider declaratory relief even after removal proceedings begin.

ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Rejected by the Ninth Circuit, as recognized in Seanlim Yith v. Kirstjen Nielsen, 881 F.3d 1155 (2018).
Aljabri v. Holder, 745 F.3d 816

Seventh Circuit, March 11, 2014. Once an applicant properly invokes § 1447(b), the district court has exclusive jurisdiction over the application until remand, so a USCIS denial issued meanwhile is void and does not moot the suit.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 3 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-13; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
Iddir v. INS, 301 F.3d 492

Seventh Circuit, August 6, 2002. INS had a nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate diversity-visa applications and § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) does not bar review of a failure to act, but no relief is available once the fiscal year ends.

ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Questioned by Akash Shahi v. United States Department of S, 33 F.4th 927 (2022).
Calderon-Ramirez v. McCament, 877 F.3d 272

Seventh Circuit, December 5, 2017. USCIS must process U-visa petitions within a reasonable time, but neither mandamus nor the APA offers relief to an applicant who shows nothing setting him apart from those ahead of him in the oldest-first queue.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 3 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-13; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
Pak v. Biden, 91 F.4th 896

Seventh Circuit, January 31, 2024. Consular nonreviewability bars a systemic challenge to how terrorism-related inadmissibility exemptions are considered, a matter the statute commits to the Secretaries' sole unreviewable discretion, and a statutory citation with a facial link to the record satisfies Mandel.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 2 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-13; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
Shahi v. United States Department of State, 33 F.4th 927

Seventh Circuit, May 6, 2022. Courts cannot order a diversity visa issued after the fiscal year ends whatever relief is requested, because the statute ends eligibility, and the Mandamus Act supplies a remedy rather than jurisdiction.

ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-10-29; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law. The citation index lists 10 other decisions citing it, none a Supreme Court, BIA or Attorney General precedent or a published circuit opinion; ImmCite's status does not review them.