Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

George v. Napolitano

District of ColumbiaRosemary M. CollyerDecided March 16, 2010No. 1:09-cv-01519

Read the decision Original 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 Because an approved I-140 Petition is a necessary prerequisite to an I-485 Application, USCIS denied Mr. George’s I-485 Application.
Form or filing	I-140 (immigrant worker petition); I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model Mr. George then filed this suit challenging USCIS’s “refusal to adjudicate” Intuit’s I-140 Petition, see Compl. ¶ 65, and USCIS’s denial of his I-485 Application.
What the suit asked for	Not recorded Read by a model
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model USCIS’s motion to dismiss will be granted.
Motion decided	Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model USCIS moves to dismiss the claims regarding Intuit’s I-140 Petition for lack of jurisdiction and the claims regarding Mr. George’s I-485 Application for failure to state a claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) & (6).
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model USCIS’s motion to dismiss will be granted.
Disposition	Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model Thus, USCIS’s motion to dismiss [Dkt. #11] will be granted.
Prevailing party	Government Read by a model Thus, USCIS’s motion to dismiss [Dkt. #11] will be granted.
The delay claim	Dismissed Read by a model Because Mr. George lacks standing to challenge any action by USCIS regarding Intuit’s I-140 Petition, the claims regarding the I-140 Petition will be dismissed.
The other claims	Dismissed Read by a model Mr. George lacks standing to challenge the withdrawal of Intuit’s I-140 Petition and he failed to state a claim with regard to the -8- I-485 Application. Thus, USCIS’s motion to dismiss [Dkt. #11] will be granted.
Months pending	31.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model On August 3, 2007, Intuit, Inc., filed an I-140 Petition on behalf of Mr. George. Compl. [Dkt. # 1], Ex. H. On the same date, Mr. George filed an I-485 Application, seeking permanent residency status.
TRAC factors	The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings	Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model Because USCIS denied Mr. George’s I-485 Application because he was ineligible for adjustment of status, and not based on an exercise of discretion, this Court has jurisdiction.
Nationality	India Read by a model Mr. George is a citizen of India who lives in Grapevine, Texas.

How the case ended

Docket: No. 1:09-cv-01519
Filed: August 12, 2009
Ended: March 18, 2010
Suit's filing to its end: 218 days
How it ended: Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record: idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why.

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.

Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233

Supreme Court, January 20, 2010. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars review only of decisions whose discretionary character is specified by statute, not discretion the agency gives itself by regulation.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328

Supreme Court, May 16, 2022. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars review of any judgment regarding the granting of the listed forms of relief, including the factual findings on which a denial of adjustment rests.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, 604 U.S. 6

Supreme Court, December 10, 2024. Revoking an approved visa petition under § 1155 is a discretionary decision or action that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) places beyond judicial review.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
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
Telecommunications Research & Action Center v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70

D.C. Circuit, October 24, 1984. Whether agency delay is unreasonable turns on six factors: a rule of reason, any statutory timetable, the human welfare interests at stake, the effect of expediting on competing priorities, the interests prejudiced by delay, and no need to find impropriety.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Council, Inc. v. Norton, 336 F.3d 1094

D.C. Circuit, August 8, 2003. A claim that an agency has unreasonably delayed a matter arises under the APA and § 1331, and the TRAC factors decide whether the delay is unreasonable.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
In re Core Communications, Inc., 531 F.3d 849

D.C. Circuit, July 8, 2008. Mandamus to compel unreasonably delayed agency action is an extraordinary remedy guided by the TRAC factors, granted here after years of unexplained delay.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Da Costa v. Immigration Investor Program Office, 80 F.4th 330

D.C. Circuit, August 18, 2023. EB-5 petition delays of roughly four years were not unreasonable under TRAC where USCIS adjudicates in a rule-of-reason order and expediting the plaintiffs would only move them ahead of others in the queue.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
American Hospital Ass'n v. Burwell, 812 F.3d 183

D.C. Circuit, February 9, 2016. A delay claim under the Mandamus Act requires a clear duty, a clear right and no adequate alternative remedy, and the TRAC factors then decide whether the delay warrants relief, with a statutory deadline weighing heavily.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Afghan and Iraqi Allies v. Blinken, 103 F.4th 807

D.C. Circuit, June 7, 2024. TRAC governs visa-processing delay claims in district court, a court that finds unreasonable delay may set adjudication deadlines, and expediting a whole class in queue order is not line-jumping.

ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-10-28; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law. The citation index lists 49 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.