Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Han Cao v. Upchurch

Eastern District of PennsylvaniaDecided July 16, 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
We agree with the majority view that USCIS has a non-discretionary duty to adjudicate the application, and therefore a claim under Section 706(a) is cognizable.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
Plaintiffs filed their applications for adjustment of status on April 1, 2003.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Rather, they seek only to compel an adjudication.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED;
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Summary judgment Read by a model
upon consideration of defendants' motion to dismiss (docket entry # 3), plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment (docket entry # 5), and the parties' replies
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
upon consideration of defendants' motion to dismiss (docket entry # 3), plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment (docket entry # 5), and the parties' replies
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
Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED;
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
By August 17, 2007, defendants shall ADJUDICATE plaintiffs' petitions for legal permanent residency and inform plaintiffs of the determination;
The delay claim Relief ordered Read by a model
By August 17, 2007, defendants shall ADJUDICATE plaintiffs' petitions for legal permanent residency and inform plaintiffs of the determination;
Months pending 51.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiffs filed their applications for adjustment of status on April 1, 2003.
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
For all of these reasons, we find that Section 1252(a)(2)(B) (ii) does not strip us of jurisdiction over plaintiffs' complaint.
Nationality China Read by a model
Dr. Cao is a citizen of the People's Republic of China

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.