Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Harriott v. Ashcroft
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 | Not recorded Read by a model |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
N-643
Read by a model
upon receipt of the N-643 [application form], the field office should preliminarily adjudicate the application to determine eligibility in less than 60 days. |
| What the suit asked for |
Some other action
Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court will issue a Writ of Mandamus ordering Respondents to approve the Application for Derivative Citizenship nunc pro tunc, effective May 17, 1998. |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
For the following reasons, the Court will deny Respondents' Motion and grant Petitioners' Motion. |
| Motion decided |
Fees under EAJA; Summary judgment
Read by a model
the Court will deny Respondents' Motion for Summary Judgment, grant Petitioners' Motion for Summary Judgment, issue a Writ of Mandamus and award Petitioners $7,143.66 in attorney's fees and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). |
| Whose motion |
Cross-motions
Read by a model
Now before the Court are Respondents' Motion to Dismiss and Petitioners' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. |
| 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
Petitioners' Petition for Writ of Mandamus is GRANTED. |
| Prevailing party |
Applicant
Read by a model
JUDGMENT IS ENTERED in favor of Petitioners and against Respondents. |
| The delay claim |
Relief ordered
Read by a model
Respondents are ordered to approve Petitioners' Application for Derivative Citizenship nunc pro tunc, effective May 17, 1998. |
| The other claims |
Relief ordered
Read by a model
Because Respondents are estopped from denying that the Application should have been granted, and because there are no other disputed facts before the Court, Petitioners are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. |
| Months pending |
54.2 months from the application to the suit; 73.3 months from the application to the court's decision
Read by a model
on May 23, 1997, she applied for a Certificate of Naturalization for Ryan |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings |
Mootness argument rejected
Read by a model
The Court finds even less persuasive Respondents' claim that all of Petitioners' claims are moot |
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 3, 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
-
Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers Union v. OSHA, 145 F.3d 120
Third Circuit, March 16, 1998. The Third Circuit weighs the TRAC factors in deciding whether to compel agency action that has been unreasonably delayed.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read the one published decision citing this case, as of 2026-11-03; it does not treat the case adversely. That describes that decision; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
-
Geda v. Director, USCIS, 126 F.4th 835
Third Circuit, January 23, 2025. Section 1255(a) commits both the adjustment decision and the process and pace for reaching it to the Secretary's discretion, so § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) strips district courts of jurisdiction over challenges to USCIS's adjudication hold policy and § 1252(a)(2)(D) does not restore it.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance