Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of North Dakota

Sharadanant v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Services

District of North DakotaRalph R. EricksonDecided February 13, 2008No. 3:07-cv-00054

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 bring this action, seeking the Court compel the Citizenship and Immigration Service to adjudicate the 1-485 applications.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
Plaintiffs bring this action, seeking the Court compel the Citizenship and Immigration Service to adjudicate the 1-485 applications.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs bring this action, seeking the Court compel the Citizenship and Immigration Service to adjudicate the 1-485 applications.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The Defendants' motion to dismiss is therefore DENIED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Before the Court is the United States' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Doc. # 7).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is the United States' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Doc. # 7).
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
The Defendants' motion to dismiss is therefore DENIED.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
The Defendants' motion to dismiss is therefore DENIED.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
The Defendants' motion to dismiss is therefore DENIED.
Months pending 36.3 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On February 3, 2005, Plaintiffs filed 485 Applications to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, along with supporting documents, with the USCIS Nebraska Service Center.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
The government's delay arguments Visa availability rejected Read by a model
a lack of employment-based visa numbers required Plaintiffs' applications remain pending at least until the next fiscal year (Doc. # 8-3, pp. 2-3). The Court does not find these excuses persuasive and concludes the delay is unreasonable.
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model
Consistent with the majority of district courts in this circuit, the Court hereby finds the jurisdiction-stripping provision of § 1252(a)(2)(B) does not apply.
Nationality India Read by a model
Plaintiff Roopalakshmi Sharadanant is a citizen of India

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:07-cv-00054
Filed
May 30, 2007
Ended
May 7, 2008
Suit's filing to its end
343 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 13 (dismissed: settled)

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

Supreme Court and Eighth 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.