Mandamus decisions / District of Massachusetts

Berishev v. Chertoff

District of MassachusettsYoungDecided May 11, 2007

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	USCIS Read by a model On August 15, 2005, USCIS examined him in connection with his application.
Form or filing	N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model On March 21, 2005, after completing the five-year physical presence requirement for naturalization pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a), Berishev applied for naturalization with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS").
What the suit asked for	Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model On September 28, 2006, after USCIS failed to act for over 18 months, Berishev filed an action in this court for a writ of mandamus under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b).
Kind of order	An order on fees Read by a model Accordingly, Berishev's motion for attorneys' fees [Doc. No. 6] in the amount of $3,839.02 is ALLOWED.
Motion decided	Fees under EAJA Read by a model Accordingly, Berishev's motion for attorneys' fees [Doc. No. 6] in the amount of $3,839.02 is ALLOWED.
Whose motion	The plaintiff's motion Read by a model Accordingly, Berishev's motion for attorneys' fees [Doc. No. 6] in the amount of $3,839.02 is ALLOWED.
Disposition	Attorney's fees An order on attorney's fees or costs after the case, counted for the side that won the fee motion. Read by a model Accordingly, Berishev's motion for attorneys' fees [Doc. No. 6] in the amount of $3,839.02 is ALLOWED.
Prevailing party	Applicant Read by a model Accordingly, Berishev's motion for attorneys' fees [Doc. No. 6] in the amount of $3,839.02 is ALLOWED.
The delay claim	Not decided here Read by a model Accordingly, Berishev's motion for attorneys' fees [Doc. No. 6] in the amount of $3,839.02 is ALLOWED.
Months pending	18.3 months from the application to the suit; 22.9 months from the application to the agency's action A section 1447(b) suit: these months run from the naturalization application. The statute's 120 days run from the interview, which they do not measure. Read by a model Upon remand Berishev's application was promptly granted, and he was sworn in as a United States citizen on February 22, 2007.
Months since the naturalization interview	18 months from the interview (2005-08-15) Read by a model On August 15, 2005, USCIS examined him in connection with his application.
TRAC factors	The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings	None Read by a model

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 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.

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
Aronov v. Napolitano, 562 F.3d 84

First Circuit, April 13, 2009. A § 1447(b) remand order directing USCIS to naturalize the applicant was not a consent decree that made him a prevailing party, and the government's delay for an FBI name check was substantially justified.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
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.
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).