Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Colorado

Kim v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Services

District of ColoradoDecided March 18, 2008

Read the decisionOriginal 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
I conclude that the decision of the^ Attorney General to grant or deny adjustment of status is a non-reviewable exercise of discretion but that the Attorney General, and thus the USCIS, has a non-discretionary duty to make some determination, except under limited circumstances.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
On June 16, 2003, he filed an I-485 application with the USCIS to have his status adjusted to that of lawful permanent resident.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
On June 8, 2007, he filed his complaint in this court, seeking mandamus relief to compel Defendants to adjudicate his petition.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants' motion to dismiss (doc no 8) is denied.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants move for dismissal of the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1)and for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R.Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants' motion to dismiss (doc no 8) is denied.
Disposition Government's motion denied; the case goes on The government's motion (to dismiss, or for summary judgment) was denied, so the case goes on. Counted as the applicant's ruling; a later decision in the case can still go either way. Read by a model
Defendants' motion to dismiss (doc no 8) is denied.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
Defendants' motion to dismiss (doc no 8) is denied.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Defendants' motion to dismiss (doc no 8) is denied.
Months pending 47.7 months from the application to the suit; 57.1 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On June 16, 2003, he filed an I-485 application with the USCIS to have his status adjusted to that of lawful permanent resident.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model
Accordingly, I join those courts that have held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) does not bar review of the Defendants' non-discretionary duty to adjudicate a petition within a reasonable time.
Nationality South Korea Read by a model
Plaintiff is a citizen of South Korea and resident of Denver, Colorado.

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 Tenth 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.