Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of New Jersey

Qiu v. Chertoff

District of New JerseyStanley R. CheslerDecided May 15, 2007No. 2:07-cv-00123

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
In this case, the Court must decide whether it has jurisdiction over an action seeking to compel the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service ("USCIS") to adjudicate an application for adjustment to lawful permanent residence status that has been pending for almost three years.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
On January 21, 2004, she submitted an application to the USCIS to adjust her status to that of a permanent resident alien, also known as an I-485 application.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs Complaint asks the Court to compel adjudication of her application, provide her with a notice of its approval and award compensatory damages.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendants' motion to dismiss will be GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Defendants have moved to dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants have moved to dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendants' motion to dismiss will be GRANTED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendants' motion to dismiss will be GRANTED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendants' motion to dismiss will be GRANTED.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendants' motion to dismiss will be GRANTED.
Months pending 35.6 months from the application to the suit; 39.8 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On January 21, 2004, she submitted an application to the USCIS to adjust her status to that of a permanent resident alien, also known as an I-485 application.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
granting the writ to compel adjudication would, do nothing more than shuffle to the front of the line those 1-485 applicants canny enough to file a complaint in federal district court.
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied Read by a model
to the extent that Plaintiff prays that the USCIS approve her I-485 application, the Court lacks jurisdiction to review the agency's ultimate decision. 8 U.S.C. §, 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) (2006)

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:07-cv-00123
Filed
January 9, 2007
Ended
May 15, 2007
Suit's filing to its end
126 days
How it ended
Ended, outcome not recorded
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for unrecorded

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

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.