Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Massachusetts

Tang v. United States of America

District of MassachusettsRichard Gaylore StearnsDecided April 26, 2024No. 1:23-cv-13187

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
Subject to limited exceptions, USCIS generally processes petitions in the order they are received.
Form or filing I-751 (removal of conditions) Read by a model
She asserts several statutory and constitutional claims, all of which, at core, hinge on defendants having unreasonably delayed adjudication of her Form I-751 petition.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Count II seeks a writ of mandamus compelling defendants to “satisfy their statutory obligations” under the Immigration and Nationality Act, i.e., to adjudicate her petition.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss is ALLOWED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants 1 Count I asserts that defendants have unreasonably delayed adjudication of her petition in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act move to dismiss, contending that Tang has failed to state a claim for relief.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss is ALLOWED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss is ALLOWED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss is ALLOWED.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss is ALLOWED.
Months pending 12 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Regardless of how allegedly easy Tang’s petition would be to process, the time it would take to process these earlier-filed petitions would counsel in favor of the reasonableness of the one-year delay experienced by Tang thus far.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety neededfavors the government
Read by a model
Tang does not dispute that this practice qualifies as a rule of reason within the scope of TRAC factor one.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
This is wise, as courts have found the first-in, first-out principle to be a “rule of reason” sufficiently explaining “the time agencies take to make decisions” in analogous contexts.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-13187
Filed
December 22, 2023
Ended
April 26, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
126 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why. Other suits in this court.

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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.