Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Vermont

D'Ambrosio v. Scott

District of VermontGeoffrey W. CrawfordDecided May 9, 2025No. 2:25-cv-00468

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
The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) has not yet adjudicated Mr. D’Ambrosio’s applications.
Form or filing I-360 (special immigrant petition); I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
Based on that abuse, Mr. D’Ambrosio filed a VAWA self-petition in March 2025, as well as an application to adjust his immigration status to that of an LPR.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Rather, he merely seeks an order that USCIS adjudicate his petition for adjustment of status.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 and 5 U.S.C. § 705, the court GRANTS the motion for a Temporary Restraining Order.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 and 5 U.S.C. § 705, the court GRANTS the motion for a Temporary Restraining Order.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Mr. D’Ambrosio currently seeks a stay of removal pending the adjudication of his claims.
Disposition Granted in the applicant's favor The principal motion was granted in full: summary judgment for either side, an injunction or TRO, a writ or order to act, fees. A motion to dismiss granted in full counts as Dismissed; a transfer is listed apart. Read by a model
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 and 5 U.S.C. § 705, the court GRANTS the motion for a Temporary Restraining Order.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 and 5 U.S.C. § 705, the court GRANTS the motion for a Temporary Restraining Order.
The delay claim Relief ordered Read by a model
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 and 5 U.S.C. § 705, the court GRANTS the motion for a Temporary Restraining Order.
The other claims Not decided here Read by a model
The second cause of action challenges the recission of ICE Policy Number 11005.3 as arbitrary and capricious.
Months pending 1.8 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Based on that abuse, Mr. D’Ambrosio filed a VAWA self-petition in March 2025, as well as an application to adjust his immigration status to that of an LPR.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the applicant
  • 2. Congressional timetablenot reached
  • 3. Human health and welfarenot reached
  • 4. Competing prioritiesnot reached
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
That delay, in itself, appears to be unreasonable given Mr. D’Ambrosio’s situation.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing rejected Read by a model
Based on the current filings, the court concludes that Mr. D’ Ambrosio is likely to succeed on his claim of unreasonable delay. Though USCIS typically proceeds on a “first-in-first-out” basis, it also has an established policy for expediting certain requests.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Italy Read by a model
Petitioner David D’ Ambrosio is a national of Italy.

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
D'Ambrosio v. ScottThis decision May 9, 2025 Geoffrey W. Crawford Granted in the applicant's favor
D'Ambrosio v. ScottThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted May 23, 2025 Geoffrey W. Crawford Denied in the government's favor

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:25-cv-00468
Filed
May 2, 2025
Ended
June 20, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
49 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
voluntary dismissal 2025-06-20

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 Second 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.