Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Liu v. Novak

District of ColumbiaEmmet G. SullivanDecided August 30, 2007

Read the decisionOriginal 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
The USCIS is assigned the adjudication of immigrant visa petitions as well as applications for permanent residence status.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
On July 23, 2003, plaintiff filed an application for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident as a derivative beneficiary of his spouse, Lu Zhang.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiff seeks to compel defendants to adjudicate his application for adjustment, though he does not ask the Court to compel a status adjustment favorable to him.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint is DENIED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Summary judgment Read by a model
Pending before the Court are defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim and plaintiffs motion for summary judgment.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint is DENIED.
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
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint is DENIED.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
Defendants are directed to complete the adjudication of plaintiffs application for adjustment of status by no later than November 30, 2007.
The delay claim Relief ordered Read by a model
Defendants are directed to complete the adjudication of plaintiffs application for adjustment of status by no later than November 30, 2007.
Months pending 42.5 months from the application to the suit; 49.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff submitted his application for adjustment to obtain lawful permanent resident status on July 23, 2003
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the applicant
  • 2. Congressional timetableneutral
  • 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
Thus, the first TRAC factor weighs in favor of finding the delay to plaintiff unreasonable.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping rejected Read by a model
Though they had ample opportunity, defendants have failed to provide information that would allow the Court to find plaintiff's interests outweighed by the impact of a remedy on other agency activities.
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model
Having considered the arguments on both sides of the issue, the Court is persuaded for three reasons that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) is not a bar to jurisdiction over plaintiffs claim.
Nationality China Read by a model
Plaintiff, Zaigang Liu, is a Chinese national lawfully residing in the United States.

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 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.