Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Massachusetts

Tian v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services et al

District of MassachusettsPaul G. LevensonDecided December 18, 2024No. 1:24-cv-12514

Read the decisionOriginal on GovInfo

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
Moreover, after receiving Plaintiff’s I-751 petition, USCIS acted promptly to notify Plaintiff that the validity of his conditional permanent residency had been extended.
Form or filing I-751 (removal of conditions) Read by a model
Requiring USCIS to make a determination on Plaintiff’s I-751 petition is not “necessary or appropriate in aid of [the Court’s] jurisdiction[].”
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
On the civil cover sheet, Plaintiff represents that he is bringing this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), and he identifies his action as one for “unreasonable delay of the final determination of the I-751 case from the USCIS.”
Kind of order A magistrate judge's recommendation Read by a model
I recommend that the District Judge dismiss this action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The court on its own Read by a model
Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, his pleading is subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Disposition Magistrate judge's recommendation A magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The district judge decides whether to adopt it, so it is not counted as either side's win. Read by a model
I recommend that the District Judge dismiss this action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
I recommend that the District Judge dismiss this action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
The delay claim Not decided here Read by a model
I recommend that the District Judge dismiss this action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Months pending 8.7 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
the agency informs Plaintiff that it received his 1-751 application on March 28, 2024
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
In addition, mandamus relief is not available because an “adequate conventional means for review” exists.

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
Tian v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services et alThis decision December 18, 2024 Paul G. Levenson Magistrate judge's recommendation
Tian v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration ServicesThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted January 3, 2025 Paul G. Levenson Magistrate judge's recommendation

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-12514
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 4)
Filed
October 1, 2024
Ended
January 7, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
98 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

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.