Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Texas

Ahmadi v. Chertoff

Northern District of TexasDavid C. GodbeyDecided November 27, 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
Almost four years later, the name check remains pending and is the only reason CIS has not adjudicated Ahmadi's application.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
On December 22, 2003, Ahmadi filed an 1-485 application for adjustment of status ("AOS") with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("CIS").
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
In his complaint, Ahmadi alleges unreasonable delay in the processing of his application and requests that the Court compel adjudication of his application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court denies the Government's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court denies the Government's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court denies the Government's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.
Disposition Government's motion denied; the case goes on The government's motion (to dismiss, or for summary judgment) was denied, so the case goes on. Counted as the applicant's ruling; a later decision in the case can still go either way. Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court denies the Government's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court denies the Government's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court denies the Government's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.
Months pending 47.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On December 22, 2003, Ahmadi filed an 1-485 application for adjustment of status ("AOS") with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("CIS").
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing rejected Read by a model
It is not clear, despite the Governments vague declarations otherwise, that the name check program truly is a first in, first out program.
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model
Accordingly, section 1252(a)(2)(B) fails to rebut the presumption of jurisdiction.

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 Fifth 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.