Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Chauhan v. Napolitano

District of ColumbiaEmmet G. SullivanDecided October 25, 2010

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 USCIS Read by a model
USCIS initially processed plaintiffs’ I-485 applications at its Service Center in Missouri, and then transferred plaintiffs’ applications to its Dallas Field Office, located in Irving, Texas, for adjudication.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
On May 12, 2008, plaintiffs filed with the USCIS Form I-485 Applications for Adjustment of Status (“I-485 applications”) to become lawful permanent residents.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
to compel action on their I-485 applications for adjustment of immigration status.
Kind of order A transfer order Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS defendants’ motion to transfer venue.
Motion decided Transfer Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS defendants’ motion to transfer venue.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS defendants’ motion to transfer venue.
Disposition Transferred to another court An order moving the case to another court. It decides where the suit is heard, not who wins, so it is not counted as either side's win. Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS defendants’ motion to transfer venue.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS defendants’ motion to transfer venue.
The delay claim Not decided here Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS defendants’ motion to transfer venue.
Months pending 22.4 months from the application to the suit; 29.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On May 12, 2008, plaintiffs filed with the USCIS Form I-485 Applications for Adjustment of Status (“I-485 applications”) to become lawful permanent residents.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality India Read by a model
Plaintiffs, Indian nationals, have at all times relevant been residents of Irving, Texas.

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 D.C. 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.