Mandamus decisions / District of Kansas
Jonathan E. Howard v. United States Department of Homeland Security
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 rule
1 Secretary of DHS; the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”); Joseph Edlow, Director of USCIS; and Gregory File, Field Office Director of USCIS Kansas City (collectively |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
I-751 (removal of conditions); N-400 (naturalization)
Read by rule
decisions denying Plaintiff’s I-751 (petition to remove conditions on residence) and N-400 (application for naturalization), and to reinstate Plaintiff’s permanent resident |
| Motion decided |
Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Preliminary injunction or TRO
Read by rule
1 at 7–9; 12 at 4.) Defendants move to dismiss Counts I and II, with respect to the I-751 petition denial, arguing that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to grant the requested relief because there has been no final agency action. |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 2:25-cv-02701
- Filed
- December 1, 2025
- Ended
- May 13, 2026
- Suit's filing to its end
- 163 days
- How it ended
- Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
- From the record
- idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant
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 Tenth 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
-
Al-Maleki v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1200
Tenth Circuit, March 18, 2009. A § 1447(b) remand ordering USCIS to administer the oath by a date certain is enforceable merits relief, and the government's request for an open-ended remand after missing the 120-day deadline was not substantially justified.
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.
-
Forest Guardians v. Babbitt, 174 F.3d 1178
Tenth Circuit, April 22, 1999. Missing a concrete statutory deadline is agency action unlawfully withheld that a court must compel, while without a deadline the question is unreasonable delay; the holding still binds in the Tenth Circuit.
ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Not followed in the Ninth Circuit by Al Otro Lado v. Noem, 138 F.4th 1102 (2025).