Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Georgia

Nyaga v. Ashcroft

Northern District of GeorgiaEvansDecided February 20, 2002

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
Plaintiff Nyaga's diversity visa application was not adjudicated or reviewed by the INS before the expiration of fiscal year 1998.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
As he already resided in the United States, he applied for an Adjustment of Status pursuant to the Diversity Program, through which he could attain legal permanent residency.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs filed the instant suit on May 15, 2001, seeking an Order of Mandamus compelling Defendants to process and adjudicate Plaintiff Nyaga's diversity visa application and both Plaintiffs' adjustment of status applications as if fiscal year 1998 had not yet ended.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Summary judgment Read by a model
Accordingly, Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is denied. The court now turns to the merits of the case at bar and the parties' cross motions for summary judgment.
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
For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion is DENIED and Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion is DENIED and Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.
Months pending 43 months from the application to the suit; 52.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Nyaga submitted his status adjustment application in October, 1997
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model
Under either interpretation, however, the undersigned concludes that section 1252 does not preclude this court from exercising jurisdiction in this particular instance.

How the case ended

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

Supreme Court and Eleventh 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.