Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Singh v. Napolitano

District of ColumbiaReggie B. WaltonDecided May 11, 2010No. 1:09-cv-00499

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,917 written decisions from 2,664 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 7:07 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
As to the remaining defendants, they argue that the USCIS’s decision to hold the plaintiff’s adjustment of status application in abeyance is a discretionary decision that falls outside of this Court’s jurisdiction under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B).
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
Based on his asylum status, the plaintiff “filed an adjustment of status application (Form I-485) on August 14, 2000.”
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
an order requiring [defendants Janet Napolitano, Sarah Taylor, and Eric Holder] to promptly adjudicate his [a]pplication for [a]djustment of [s]tatus to permanent residency
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Based on the foregoing analysis, the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction must be granted by the Court.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Summary judgment Read by a model
On July 24, 2009, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s Petition for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) or for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On July 24, 2009, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s Petition for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) or for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Based on the foregoing analysis, the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction must be granted by the Court.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Based on the foregoing analysis, the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction must be granted by the Court.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Based on the foregoing analysis, the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction must be granted by the Court.
Months pending 103 months from the application to the suit; 116.9 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
filed an adjustment of status application (Form I-485) on August 14, 2000.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied Read by a model
As for the remaining defendants, there is little doubt that the Court is precluded under Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) from reviewing the Secretary’s decision to hold the plaintiff’s application in abeyance.
Nationality India Read by a model
The plaintiff is a citizen of India

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:09-cv-00499
Filed
March 16, 2009
Ended
May 11, 2010
Suit's filing to its end
421 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 3 (dismissed: lack of jurisdiction)

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why.

Supreme Court and D.C. 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.