Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Kaur v. Chertoff

District of ColumbiaWaltonDecided May 31, 2007No. 1:06-cv-00765

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 USCIS Read by a model
On July 10, 2006, the USCIS issued a Notice of Approval of Relative Immigrant Visa Petition regarding Kaur's I-130 petition.
Form or filing I-130 (relative petition); I-765 (EAD) Read by a model
Form I-130 Immigrant Petition for Alien Relative ("I-130 petition")
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
a writ of mandamus compelling the adjudication of the Form I-130 Immigrant Petition for Alien Relative ("I-130 petition") filed by Kaur on Malhi's behalf on April 28, 2001;
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the respondents' motion to dismiss.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Currently before the Court is the respondents' motion to dismiss the petitioners' petition
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the respondents' motion to dismiss.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The Court must therefore grant the respondents' motion to dismiss the petition for a writ of mandamus.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The Court must therefore grant the respondents' motion to dismiss the petition for a writ of mandamus.
The other claims Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
the petitioners' request for declaratory relief on this claim is moot.
Months pending 59.9 months from the application to the suit The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
Kaur then submitted an I-130 petition on Malhi's behalf on April 28, 2001
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
In any event, it is clear that if Malhi has indeed now received employment authorization — something which the petitioners nowhere dispute — then the petitioners' request for declaratory relief on this claim is moot.
Nationality India Read by a model
Malhi is a native and citizen of India
I-130 category Family preference Read by a model
seeking classification of Malhi as the spouse of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:06-cv-00765
Filed
April 26, 2006
Ended
May 31, 2007
Suit's filing to its end
400 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.

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.