Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Kirwa v. United States Department of Defense

District of ColumbiaEllen S. HuvelleDecided October 25, 2017

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 Not recorded Read by a model
Form or filing N-426 Read by a model
Each, however, has been unable to apply because the military has refused to give them a signed Form N-426, which is a form that certifies an applicant’s qualifying military service and must be submitted to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”)
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
Plaintiffs filed a complaint on September 1, 2017, challenging DOD’s refusal to complete their N-426 Forms and certify their honorable service in the Selected Reserve as unlawfully imposing an “active-duty” requirement in violation of § 1440.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the Court grants plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and provisional class certification.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the Court grants plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and provisional class certification.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunctive relief, brought on behalf of themselves and similarly-situated MAVNI soldiers.
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 stated above, the Court grants plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and provisional class certification.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the Court grants plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and provisional class certification.
The delay claim Relief ordered Read by a model
Finding that plaintiffs have carried their burden as to all requirements, the Court grants plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunctive relief.
The other claims Relief ordered Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the Court grants plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and provisional class certification.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

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
Kirwa v. United States Department of DefenseThis decision October 25, 2017 Ellen S. Huvelle Granted in the applicant's favor
Kirwa v. United States Department of DefenseThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted January 11, 2018 Ellen Segal Huvelle Dismissed in part; some claims go on

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 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.