Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Ahmed v. Holder

Eastern District of PennsylvaniaBrodyDecided March 19, 2014

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
USCIS simultaneously placed Ahmed’s application on administrative hold pursuant to a series of USCIS policy memoranda setting forth procedures for applications that may potentially benefit from the Secretary of Homeland Security’s exemption authority.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
After an initial denial on unrelated grounds, on February 14, 2006, Ahmed filed a Form 1-485 application for adjustment of immigration status to legal permanent resident.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiff Aqueel Ahmed seeks to compel adjudication of his application for adjustment of immigration status from that of asylee to lawful permanent resident.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
I will grant in part and deny in part the motion to dismiss for the reasons discussed below.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Summary judgment Read by a model
In the alternative, Defendants move for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
In the alternative, Defendants move for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.
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
I find that Ahmed is entitled to an order requiring Defendants to adjudicate his application on or before 120 days from my judgment in this case.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
I find that Ahmed is entitled to an order requiring Defendants to adjudicate his application on or before 120 days from my judgment in this case.
The delay claim Relief ordered Read by a model
I find that Ahmed is entitled to an order requiring Defendants to adjudicate his application on or before 120 days from my judgment in this case.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Thus, Ahmed has no due process right to relief, and the motion to dismiss Ahmed’s violation of due process will be granted.
Months pending 97.1 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
on February 14, 2006, Ahmed filed a Form 1-485 application for adjustment of immigration status to legal permanent resident.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the applicant
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the applicant
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the applicant
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
Under these circumstances, I cannot deem the indefinite delay in this case to be reasonable. These two factors weigh in favor of Ahmed.
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model
Therefore jurisdiction over a claim that adjudication has been unreasonably delayed is not barred by the INA’s jurisdiction-stripping provision, and this Court retains jurisdiction over Ahmed’s claim that USCIS has unreasonably delayed the adjudication of his application.
Nationality Pakistan Read by a model
Ahmed is a native and citizen of Pakistan.

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 Third 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.