Mandamus decisions / District of Massachusetts

Morgovsky v. Department of Homeland Security

District of MassachusettsStearnsDecided October 18, 2007

Read the decision Original 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	USCIS Read by a model Under the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA), CIS is responsible for adjudicating naturalization applications.
Form or filing	N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model He applied for naturalization on July 16, 2004.
What the suit asked for	Decide the application Read by a model He asks that the court grant relief by issuing a writ of mandamus directing CIS to act on his petition.
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model For the foregoing reasons, defendants' motion to dismiss is ALLOWED. The dismissal will enter without prejudice.
Motion decided	Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model collectively moved to dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model For the foregoing reasons, defendants' motion to dismiss is ALLOWED.
Disposition	Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model For the foregoing reasons, defendants' motion to dismiss is ALLOWED. The dismissal will enter without prejudice.
Prevailing party	Government Read by a model For the foregoing reasons, defendants' motion to dismiss is ALLOWED. The dismissal will enter without prejudice.
The delay claim	Dismissed Read by a model For the foregoing reasons, defendants' motion to dismiss is ALLOWED. The dismissal will enter without prejudice.
The other claims	Dismissed Read by a model For the foregoing reasons, defendants' motion to dismiss is ALLOWED. The dismissal will enter without prejudice.
Months pending	30.4 months from the application to the suit; 39.1 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model He applied for naturalization on July 16, 2004.
TRAC factors	The court weighed the TRAC factors 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government 2. Congressional timetablenot reached 3. Human health and welfarenot reached 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government 5. Interests prejudicednot reached 6. No impropriety needednot reached Read by a model the sixteen month delay in deciding his appeal is not per se unreasonable.
The government's delay arguments	Line-jumping accepted Read by a model The court simply has insufficient reason to advance Morgovsky to the head of the queue.
Threshold rulings	None Read by a model

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 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 3, 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
Aronov v. Napolitano, 562 F.3d 84

First Circuit, April 13, 2009. A § 1447(b) remand order directing USCIS to naturalize the applicant was not a consent decree that made him a prevailing party, and the government's delay for an FBI name check was substantially justified.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Towns of Wellesley, Concord & Norwood v. FERC, 829 F.2d 275

First Circuit, September 25, 1987. The First Circuit applies the TRAC factors when asked to compel agency action that has been unreasonably delayed.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Patel v. Jaddou, 118 F.4th 475

First Circuit, October 16, 2024. Assuming statutory jurisdiction, § 1255(a) does not forbid USCIS from holding adjustment applications until a visa number is immediately available, so no § 706(1) claim lies against the abeyance policy; the Fourth Circuit rejects deciding the merits before the § 1252(a)(2)(B) question.

ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Reasoning rejected in the Fourth Circuit by Lolakshi Kale v. Angelica Alfonso-Royals, 139 F.4th 329 (2025).