Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Kaplan v. Chertoff

Eastern District of PennsylvaniaEduardo C. RobrenoDecided April 16, 2007

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
Plaintiffs bring this case because a huge backlog of unprocessed applications has built up at CIS, resulting in the termination of their SSI benefits before CIS can consider or decide their applications.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status); N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
Plaintiffs in this case are a proposed class of some 50,000 refugees and asylees who have lost or are at risk of losing their SSI benefits as a result of alleged delays in their applications for legal permanent residency ("LPR") status and naturalization.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Through this second action, Plaintiffs seek an injunction compelling the defendants to timely process their applications and other declaratory relief.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
As set forth in more detail below, the Court will grant Defendants' motion as to Plaintiffs' first action, but deny the motion as to the second action.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal. Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (doc. no. 22).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal. Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (doc. no. 22).
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
Second, Plaintiffs have stated a valid claim of unreasonable delay against CIS and the FBI under the APA.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Second, Plaintiffs have stated a valid claim of unreasonable delay against CIS and the FBI under the APA.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Second, Plaintiffs have stated a valid claim of unreasonable delay against CIS and the FBI under the APA.
The other claims Some dismissed, some go on Read by a model
Plaintiffs' due process claim, however, must be dismissed because Plaintiffs do not have a property interest in any SSI benefits after the seven-year limitation imposed by Congress. As to the second action, on the other hand, Plaintiffs have stated two viable claims.
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

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 Third 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.