Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Michigan

Wei Shen v. Chertoff

Eastern District of MichiganFriedmanDecided July 9, 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
The Court finds that the USCIS does not have a nondiscretionary duty to process 1-485 applications.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
Plaintiff Wei Shen ("Plaintiff'), pro se, alleges that Defendants have improperly delayed the adjudication of his I-485 application to adjust to permanent resident status.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Essentially, Plaintiff seeks a court order to compel Defendants to adjudicate his application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (DKT. NO. 7)
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On February 20, 2007, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Complaint is dismissed without prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1).
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Complaint is dismissed without prejudice.
Months pending 49.2 months from the application to the suit; 55.9 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On November 12, 2002, Plaintiff filed his 1-485 application with the Nebraska Service Center of the USCIS.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied Read by a model
8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), (ii). As such, Plaintiff fails to satisfy the three prongs needed to establish mandamus 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 Sixth 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.