Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Illinois

Robertson v. Attorney General of the United States

Northern District of IllinoisBuckloDecided March 17, 1997

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 Department of Justice Read by a model
Under Section 1186a(c)(3)(A) and 8 C.F.R. § 216.4 (1996), the Attorney General is required to make a decision within 90 days on a petition for removal of conditional status.
Form or filing I-751 (removal of conditions) Read by a model
Petition to Remove Conditions on Residence
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
The plaintiffs, Jason Robertson and Beatrice Amankwa Sakyi, are a married couple who filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment that the defendants' failure to adjudicate their Petition to Remove Conditions on Residence is a statutory and regulatory violation.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the following reasons, the complaint is dismissed.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
The defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) or in the alternative to grant summary judgment.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) or in the alternative to grant summary judgment.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Accordingly, Mr. Robertson and Ms. Sakyi's complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Accordingly, Mr. Robertson and Ms. Sakyi's complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, Mr. Robertson and Ms. Sakyi's complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
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 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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.