Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Michigan

Seydi v. US CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES

Eastern District of MichiganGerald E. RosenDecided March 28, 2011No. 2:10-cv-10925

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
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1159(b)(5), the USCIS must determine an applicant's admissibility in adjudicating an application for adjustment of status.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
In November of 2005, Plaintiff filed a Form I-485 application to adjust his status to that of a lawful permanent resident.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Through the present action, Plaintiff challenges this continued delay, seeking a writ of mandamus that would compel the Defendant agency and immigration officials to act upon his application for an adjustment of status.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Summary judgment Read by a model
Defendants' August 23, *721 2010 motion to dismiss or for summary judgment (docket #15) is GRANTED IN PART, as to Defendants' challenge to the Court's subject matter jurisdiction, and is otherwise DENIED AS MOOT.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
Plaintiff has filed a response in opposition to Defendants' motion as well as a cross-motion for summary judgment, arguing that the delay in the resolution of his application to adjust status has been unreasonable as a matter of law.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For *716 the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction over this case, and that Defendants' motion to dismiss must be granted.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For *716 the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction over this case, and that Defendants' motion to dismiss must be granted.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For *716 the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction over this case, and that Defendants' motion to dismiss must be granted.
Months pending 51.7 months from the application to the suit; 64.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
In November of 2005, Plaintiff filed a Form I-485 application to adjust his status to that of a 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 applied Read by a model
More to the point, because the Secretary has engaged in these various exercises of her discretionary authority, rather than simply permitting Plaintiff's application to languish without consideration or action, § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) takes these actions outside the purview of this Court.
Nationality Senegal Read by a model
Plaintiff Amaro Kecoye Seydi is a 58-year-old male who is a native and citizen of Senegal, and who currently resides in Detroit, Michigan.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:10-cv-10925
Filed
March 9, 2010
Ended
March 28, 2011
Suit's filing to its end
384 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant

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

Supreme Court and Sixth 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.