Mandamus decisions / District of Massachusetts

Sisse v. Moniz

District of MassachusettsWilliam G. YoungDecided July 1, 2019No. 1:18-cv-12356

Read the decision Original 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	ICE Read by a model Todd Lyons, then-Boston Field Office Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
Form or filing	None named Read by a model
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 Therefore, the Court DENIES Sisse's motions for injunctive relief, ECF Nos. 11, 12, and GRANTS Moniz's motion to dismiss his petition, ECF No. 7.
Motion decided	Other motion to dismiss; Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model Therefore, the Court DENIES Sisse's motions for injunctive relief, ECF Nos. 11, 12, and GRANTS Moniz's motion to dismiss his petition, ECF No. 7.
Whose motion	Cross-motions Read by a model Therefore, the Court DENIES Sisse's motions for injunctive relief, ECF Nos. 11, 12, and GRANTS Moniz's motion to dismiss his petition, ECF No. 7.
Disposition	Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model After careful consideration, the Court concludes that the claims that Sisse presents in his amended petition are moot.
Prevailing party	Neither side Read by a model After careful consideration, the Court concludes that the claims that Sisse presents in his amended petition are moot.
The other claims	Moot: the agency acted Read by a model After careful consideration, the Court concludes that the claims that Sisse presents in his amended petition are moot.
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
TRAC factors	The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings	Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied; Held moot Read by a model Since adjustment of status decisions fall into that category, see id. , section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) shields the Attorney General from judicial review here.

How the case ended

Docket: No. 1:18-cv-12356
Filed: November 11, 2018
Ended: March 1, 2022
Suit's filing to its end: 1,206 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 First 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.

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
Patel v. Jaddou, 118 F.4th 475

First Circuit, October 16, 2024. Assuming statutory jurisdiction, § 1255(a) does not forbid USCIS from holding adjustment applications until a visa number is immediately available, so no § 706(1) claim lies against the abeyance policy; the Fourth Circuit rejects deciding the merits before the § 1252(a)(2)(B) question.

ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Reasoning rejected in the Fourth Circuit by Lolakshi Kale v. Angelica Alfonso-Royals, 139 F.4th 329 (2025).
Towns of Wellesley, Concord & Norwood v. FERC, 829 F.2d 275

First Circuit, September 25, 1987. The First Circuit applies the TRAC factors when asked to compel agency action that has been unreasonably delayed.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 5 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-13; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.