Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Illinois

Miao He v. Chertoff

Northern District of IllinoisMatthew F. KennellyDecided January 2, 2008No. 1:07-cv-00363

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
Plaintiffs filed their applications for adjustment of status ("AOS") with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("CIS") in late December 2004.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
Plaintiffs filed their applications for adjustment of status ("AOS") with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("CIS") in late December 2004.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs Miao He and Tao Qin, [1] two foreign nationals residing in the United States, filed this suit to compel action on the processing of their applications to adjust, to their status to that of permanent residents under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) [docket no. 16] and directs defendants to answer the complaint by no later than January 16, 2008.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Before the court is defendants' motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the court is defendants' motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
Disposition Government's motion denied; the case goes on The government's motion (to dismiss, or for summary judgment) was denied, so the case goes on. Counted as the applicant's ruling; a later decision in the case can still go either way. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) [docket no. 16] and directs defendants to answer the complaint by no later than January 16, 2008.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the motion.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Therefore, the Court declines to dismiss plaintiffs' claim for mandamus relief.
The other claims The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Finally, the Court declines to dismiss plaintiffs' claim for declaratory relief.
Months pending Not stated at filing The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
Plaintiffs filed their applications for adjustment of status ("AOS") with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("CIS") in late December 2004.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected; Held moot Read by a model
In sum, section 1252(a)(2)(B) does not strip the Court of jurisdiction to review the pace at which CIS processes plaintiffs' AOS applications.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:07-cv-00363
Filed
January 19, 2007
Ended
August 26, 2008
Suit's filing to its end
585 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 12 (dismissed: voluntarily)

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

Supreme Court and Seventh 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.