Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Puerto Rico

Perejoan-Palau v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security

District of Puerto RicoDecided February 16, 2010No. 3:09-cv-01253

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
Plaintiffs brought the instant action requesting that the Court order Defendant USCIS to process Plaintiffs' diversity visa application as if the 2007 diversity visas were still available.
Form or filing DS-230; I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
Immigrant Visa Application forms DS 230, parts I and II, on behalf of herself and her husband. Plaintiffs could apply to the USCIS for adjustment of status within the period of October 1, 2006 until September 30, 2007.
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
Plaintiffs brought the instant action requesting that the Court order Defendant USCIS to process Plaintiffs' diversity visa application as if the 2007 diversity visas were still available.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons stated herein, Defendant's motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendant U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services of U.S. Department of Homeland Security's ("USCIS") motion to dismiss (No. 8) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendant U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services of U.S. Department of Homeland Security's ("USCIS") motion to dismiss (No. 8)
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Thus, the Court holds that the complaint should be dismissed because the Court lacks jurisdiction.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons stated herein, Defendant's motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
the Court determines that it lacks jurisdiction to hear the request for a writ of mandamus.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Thus, the Court holds that the complaint should be dismissed because the Court lacks jurisdiction.
Months pending 17.8 months from the application to the suit; 29 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiffs mailed all the forms, supporting documents and fees, on September 18, 2007, to the USCIS office in Chicago.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:09-cv-01253
Filed
March 13, 2009
Ended
February 16, 2010
Suit's filing to its end
340 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 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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.