Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Illinois

Shalash v. Mukasey

Northern District of IllinoisRuben CastilloDecided September 12, 2008

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 He applied for naturalization on September 9, 2003, and he was interviewed by the United States Citizen and Immigration Services ("CIS") on April 12, 2004.
Form or filing	N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model He applied for naturalization on September 9, 2003, and he was interviewed by the United States Citizen and Immigration Services ("CIS") on April 12, 2004.
What the suit asked for	Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model Plaintiff filed his petition for a hearing on his naturalization application pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b),
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs petition for a hearing on his naturalization application is denied (R. 22), and Plaintiffs motion to reinstate his petition for a hearing is denied as moot because CIS already adjudicated his application.
Motion decided	Fees under EAJA; Other motion to dismiss Read by a model Defendants filed their response to Plaintiffs application for fees jointly with their motion to dismiss.
Whose motion	Cross-motions Read by a model Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs petition for a hearing on his naturalization application is denied (R. 22), and Plaintiffs motion to reinstate his petition for a hearing is denied as moot because CIS already adjudicated his application.
Disposition	Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model Plaintiffs motion to reinstate his petition for a hearing is denied as moot because CIS already adjudicated his application.
Prevailing party	Neither side Read by a model Plaintiffs motion to reinstate his petition for a hearing is denied as moot because CIS already adjudicated his application.
The delay claim	Moot: the agency acted Read by a model Plaintiffs motion to reinstate his petition for a hearing is denied as moot because CIS already adjudicated his application.
Months pending	40.3 months from the application to the suit; 53.2 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 By February 2008, CIS adjudicated Plaintiffs application for naturalization, and Plaintiff became a citizen on February 7, 2008.
Months since the naturalization interview	46.1 months from the interview (2004-04-12) Read by a model he was interviewed by the United States Citizen and Immigration Services ("CIS") on April 12, 2004.
TRAC factors	The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings	Held moot Read by a model Plaintiffs motion to reinstate his petition for a hearing is denied as moot because CIS already adjudicated his application.

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 Seventh 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
Klene v. Napolitano, 697 F.3d 666

Seventh Circuit, October 12, 2012. Section 1429 is not jurisdictional, and a district court reviewing a naturalization denial under § 1421(c) may consider declaratory relief even after removal proceedings begin.

ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Rejected by the Ninth Circuit, as recognized in Seanlim Yith v. Kirstjen Nielsen, 881 F.3d 1155 (2018).
Aljabri v. Holder, 745 F.3d 816

Seventh Circuit, March 11, 2014. Once an applicant properly invokes § 1447(b), the district court has exclusive jurisdiction over the application until remand, so a USCIS denial issued meanwhile is void and does not moot the suit.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 3 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.
Iddir v. INS, 301 F.3d 492

Seventh Circuit, August 6, 2002. INS had a nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate diversity-visa applications and § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) does not bar review of a failure to act, but no relief is available once the fiscal year ends.

ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Questioned by Akash Shahi v. United States Department of S, 33 F.4th 927 (2022).
Calderon-Ramirez v. McCament, 877 F.3d 272

Seventh Circuit, December 5, 2017. USCIS must process U-visa petitions within a reasonable time, but neither mandamus nor the APA offers relief to an applicant who shows nothing setting him apart from those ahead of him in the oldest-first queue.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 3 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.
Pak v. Biden, 91 F.4th 896

Seventh Circuit, January 31, 2024. Consular nonreviewability bars a systemic challenge to how terrorism-related inadmissibility exemptions are considered, a matter the statute commits to the Secretaries' sole unreviewable discretion, and a statutory citation with a facial link to the record satisfies Mandel.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 2 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.
Shahi v. United States Department of State, 33 F.4th 927

Seventh Circuit, May 6, 2022. Courts cannot order a diversity visa issued after the fiscal year ends whatever relief is requested, because the statute ends eligibility, and the Mandamus Act supplies a remedy rather than jurisdiction.

ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-10-29; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law. The citation index lists 10 other decisions citing it, none a Supreme Court, BIA or Attorney General precedent or a published circuit opinion; ImmCite's status does not review them.