Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Illinois

Abuyameen v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Northern District of IllinoisLaShonda A. HuntDecided January 10, 2025No. 1:24-cv-00227

Read the decision Original 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 Following Plaintiffs’ voluntary dismissal of their case against Defendant U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS” or “Defendant”),
Form or filing	I-485 (adjustment of status); N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model brought this action seeking review of Defendant’s (1) denial of Hadeel’s application for naturalization and (2) unreasonable delay in adjudicating Nadeen’s and Adam’s applications for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident.
What the suit asked for	Not recorded Read by a model
Kind of order	An order on fees Read by a model For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Hadeel’s petition for fees and costs is denied.
Motion decided	Fees under EAJA Read by a model Plaintiff Hadeel Abuyameen (“Hadeel”) filed an opposed petition for fees and costs pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B).
Whose motion	The plaintiff's motion Read by a model Plaintiff Hadeel Abuyameen (“Hadeel”) filed an opposed petition for fees and costs pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B).
Disposition	Attorney's fees An order on attorney's fees or costs after the case, counted for the side that won the fee motion. Read by a model For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Hadeel’s petition for fees and costs is denied.
Prevailing party	Government Read by a model For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Hadeel’s petition for fees and costs is denied.
The delay claim	Not decided here Read by a model At issue here is whether Hadeel constitutes a prevailing party for purposes of the EAJA.
The other claims	Not decided here Read by a model At issue here is whether Hadeel constitutes a prevailing party for purposes of the EAJA.
Months pending	22 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model Nadeen’s and Adam’s applications for adjustment of status had been pending for over 22 months.
TRAC factors	The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings	None Read by a model
Nationality	Jordan Read by a model Hadeel and her siblings Nadeen Abuyameen (“Nadeen”) and Adam Abuyameen (“Adam”), citizens of Jordan

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. How decisions are grouped into cases.

Decision	Decided	Judge	Disposition
Abuyameen v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration ServicesThis decision	January 10, 2025	LaShonda A. Hunt	Attorney's fees
Abuyameen v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration ServicesThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted	January 10, 2025	LaShonda A. Hunt	Attorney's fees

How the case ended

Docket: No. 1:24-cv-00227
Filed: January 9, 2024
Ended: July 1, 2024
Suit's filing to its end: 174 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 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.

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
Klene v. Napolitano, 697 F.3d 666

Seventh Circuit, October 12, 2012. Section 1429 is not jurisdictional, and a district court reviewing a naturalization denial under § 1421(c) may consider declaratory relief even after removal proceedings begin.

ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Rejected by the Ninth Circuit, as recognized in Seanlim Yith v. Kirstjen Nielsen, 881 F.3d 1155 (2018).
Aljabri v. Holder, 745 F.3d 816

Seventh Circuit, March 11, 2014. Once an applicant properly invokes § 1447(b), the district court has exclusive jurisdiction over the application until remand, so a USCIS denial issued meanwhile is void and does not moot the suit.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 3 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-13; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
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. ImmCite has read all 3 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-13; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
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 2026-11-13; 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.