Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Illinois
Cervantes v. Perryman
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 |
Department of Justice
Read by a model
This complaint was amended on December 6, 1996 seeking the same relief from Janet Reno, Attorney General, who was added as a Defendant. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
I-765 (EAD)
Read by a model
The Plaintiffs filed applications for suspension of deportation, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1254(a)(1) and for employment authorization, based on eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(c)(10). |
| What the suit asked for |
Decide the application
Read by a model
Plaintiffs seek, inter alia, an order requiring the Defendants to accept and adjudicate the applications for suspension of deportation |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Ashman's Report and Recommendation of January 24, 1997, and denies plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction (5-1). |
| Motion decided |
Preliminary injunction or TRO
Read by a model
The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Ashman's Report and Recommendation of January 24, 1997, and denies plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction (5-1). |
| Whose motion |
The plaintiff's motion
Read by a model
On December 6, 1996, the Plaintiffs filed this motion for a preliminary injunction |
| Disposition |
Denied in the government's favor
The principal motion was denied in full: a motion to dismiss denied so the case goes on, or relief denied on the merits.
Read by a model
The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Ashman's Report and Recommendation of January 24, 1997, and denies plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction (5-1). |
| Prevailing party |
Government
Read by a model
The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Ashman's Report and Recommendation of January 24, 1997, and denies plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction (5-1). |
| The delay claim |
Relief denied
Read by a model
The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Ashman's Report and Recommendation of January 24, 1997, and denies plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction (5-1). |
| The other claims |
Relief denied
Read by a model
this Court will not find the regulations at issue here unconstitutional as applied simply because Plaintiffs baldly assert that it is so. |
| 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 |
| Nationality |
Mexico
Read by a model
Plaintiffs, who are of Mexican descent and who have listed their nationality and citizenship as Mexican |
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 Seventh 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
-
Iddir v. INS, 301 F.3d 492
Seventh Circuit, August 6, 2002. INS had a nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate diversity-visa applications and § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) does not bar review of a failure to act, but no relief is available once the fiscal year ends.
ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Questioned by Akash Shahi v. United States Department of S, 33 F.4th 927 (2022).
-
Calderon-Ramirez v. McCament, 877 F.3d 272
Seventh Circuit, December 5, 2017. USCIS must process U-visa petitions within a reasonable time, but neither mandamus nor the APA offers relief to an applicant who shows nothing setting him apart from those ahead of him in the oldest-first queue.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Pak v. Biden, 91 F.4th 896
Seventh Circuit, January 31, 2024. Consular nonreviewability bars a systemic challenge to how terrorism-related inadmissibility exemptions are considered, a matter the statute commits to the Secretaries' sole unreviewable discretion, and a statutory citation with a facial link to the record satisfies Mandel.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 2 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-10-30; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
-
Shahi v. United States Department of State, 33 F.4th 927
Seventh Circuit, May 6, 2022. Courts cannot order a diversity visa issued after the fiscal year ends whatever relief is requested, because the statute ends eligibility, and the Mandamus Act supplies a remedy rather than jurisdiction.
ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-10-29; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law. The citation index lists 10 other decisions citing it, none a Supreme Court, BIA or Attorney General precedent or a published circuit opinion; ImmCite's status does not review them.