Mandamus decisions / District of Massachusetts

Compere v. Riordan

District of MassachusettsGortonDecided April 12, 2019No. 1:18-cv-12431

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 Plaintiffs seek a writ of mandamus to compel the USCIS to adjudicate Compere's application for adjustment of status nunc pro tunc to April, 2004, when the USCIS first failed to produce the necessary documentation to plaintiffs for that application.
Form or filing	I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model the Form I-485 Adjustment of Status application
What the suit asked for	Decide the application Read by a model Plaintiffs seek a writ of mandamus to compel the USCIS to adjudicate Compere's application for adjustment of status nunc pro tunc to April, 2004, when the USCIS first failed to produce the necessary documentation to plaintiffs for that application.
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model Accordingly, defendants' motion to dismiss (Docket No. 20) is ALLOWED
Motion decided	Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model For the reasons that follow, the Court will now allow defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model defendants' motion to dismiss (Docket No. 20)
Disposition	Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model defendants' motion to dismiss (Docket No. 20) is ALLOWED
Prevailing party	Government Read by a model Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they are entitled to the unusual remedy of a writ of mandamus and therefore defendants' motion to dismiss will be allowed.
The delay claim	Dismissed Read by a model Accordingly, defendants' motion to dismiss (Docket No. 20) is ALLOWED
Months pending	180 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model by unreasonably failing to produce for nearly 15 years the necessary documentation for Compere to file the Form I-485 Adjustment of Status application.
TRAC factors	The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings	None Read by a model

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision, this one. How decisions are grouped into cases.

Decision	Decided	Judge	Disposition
Compere v. Riordan	March 20, 2019	Nathaniel M. Gorton	Denied in the government's favor
Compere v. RiordanThis decisionThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted	April 12, 2019	Gorton	Dismissed

How the case ended

Docket: No. 1:18-cv-12431
Filed: November 21, 2018
Ended: April 16, 2019
Suit's filing to its end: 146 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. Other suits in this court.

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
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).