Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Massachusetts

Yuping Li v. Chertoff

District of MassachusettsTauroDecided June 12, 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
As the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service ("USCIS") failed to act on Plaintiffs petition in a timely manner, this court has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b).
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
Plaintiff became eligible for naturalization on April 5, 2003, and filed an application for naturalization on May 8, 2003.
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
As the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service ("USCIS") failed to act on Plaintiffs petition in a timely manner, this court has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is ALLOWED. Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is ALLOWED. Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is ALLOWED. Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
Disposition Granted in the applicant's favor The principal motion was granted in full: summary judgment for either side, an injunction or TRO, a writ or order to act, fees. A motion to dismiss granted in full counts as Dismissed; a transfer is listed apart. Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is ALLOWED. Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
Defendants shall promptly naturalize Plaintiff.
The delay claim Relief ordered Read by a model
Defendants shall promptly naturalize Plaintiff. By September 10, 2007, Defendants shall file with this court proof that Plaintiff has been naturalized.
Months pending 36.8 months from the application to the suit; 49.1 months from the application to the court's decision A section 1447(b) suit: these months run from the naturalization application. The statute's 120 days run from the interview, which they do not measure. Read by a model
filed an application for naturalization on May 8, 2003.
Months since the naturalization interview 37.7 months from the interview (2004-04-21) Read by a model
On April 21, 2004, USCIS examined Plaintiff, who passed the language, history, and government examination.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality China Read by a model
Plaintiff, a citizen of the People's Republic of China, is married to a United States citizen and has been a permanent resident since April 5, 2000.

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 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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.