Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Illinois

Popnikolovski v. United States Department of Homeland Security, Citizenship & Immigration Services

Northern District of IllinoisRebecca R. PallmeyerDecided July 14, 2010No. 1:10-cv-00372

Read the decision Original 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 The court directs, further, that USCIS render a timely decision to Plaintiff's naturalization application following a proper review.
Form or filing	N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model On October 24, 2008, Plaintiff filed an application for naturalization ("N-400") with USCIS.
What the suit asked for	Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model He asks that the court adjudicate his naturalization application itself.
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model Thus, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [8] is denied.
Motion decided	Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Remand under 1447(b) Read by a model (Defs.' Reply in Support of Their Mot. to Dismiss or in the Alternative, for Remand (hereinafter "Defs.' Reply"), at 1-2.)
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model Defendants have moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that USCIS's decision moots Plaintiff's case.
Disposition	Remanded to the agency Sent back to the agency, with or without instructions. Read by a model The court nevertheless declines to adjudicate Plaintiff's application on its merits, and accordingly remands the matter to USCIS with instructions.
Prevailing party	Applicant Read by a model Thus, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [8] is denied. The court nevertheless declines to adjudicate Plaintiff's application on its merits, and accordingly remands the matter to USCIS with instructions.
The delay claim	Remanded to the agency Read by a model The court nevertheless declines to adjudicate Plaintiff's application on its merits, and accordingly remands the matter to USCIS with instructions.
Months pending	14.9 months from the application to the suit; 20.6 months from the application to the court's decision A section 1447(b) suit: these months run from the naturalization application. The statute's 120 days run from the interview, which they do not measure. Read by a model On October 24, 2008, Plaintiff filed an application for naturalization ("N-400") with USCIS.
Months since the naturalization interview	9.7 months from the interview (2009-04-08) Read by a model Because Plaintiff's initial examination was completed on April 8, 2009, and more than 120 days had passed without a decision, Plaintiff properly filed this action pursuant to § 1447(b).
TRAC factors	The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings	Mootness argument rejected Read by a model This court concludes that the January 27, 2010 USCIS decision denying Plaintiff's application is ineffective, so the case is not moot.

How the case ended

Docket: No. 1:10-cv-00372
Filed: January 19, 2010
Ended: July 14, 2010
Suit's filing to its end: 176 days
How it ended: Remanded to the agency
From the record: idb disp 11 (remanded to U.S. agency)

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

Supreme Court and Seventh 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.

Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55

Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Klene v. Napolitano, 697 F.3d 666

Seventh Circuit, October 12, 2012. Section 1429 is not jurisdictional, and a district court reviewing a naturalization denial under § 1421(c) may consider declaratory relief even after removal proceedings begin.

ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Rejected by the Ninth Circuit, as recognized in Seanlim Yith v. Kirstjen Nielsen, 881 F.3d 1155 (2018).
Aljabri v. Holder, 745 F.3d 816

Seventh Circuit, March 11, 2014. Once an applicant properly invokes § 1447(b), the district court has exclusive jurisdiction over the application until remand, so a USCIS denial issued meanwhile is void and does not moot the suit.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Iddir v. INS, 301 F.3d 492

Seventh Circuit, August 6, 2002. INS had a nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate diversity-visa applications and § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) does not bar review of a failure to act, but no relief is available once the fiscal year ends.

ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Questioned by Akash Shahi v. United States Department of S, 33 F.4th 927 (2022).
Calderon-Ramirez v. McCament, 877 F.3d 272

Seventh Circuit, December 5, 2017. USCIS must process U-visa petitions within a reasonable time, but neither mandamus nor the APA offers relief to an applicant who shows nothing setting him apart from those ahead of him in the oldest-first queue.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Pak v. Biden, 91 F.4th 896

Seventh Circuit, January 31, 2024. Consular nonreviewability bars a systemic challenge to how terrorism-related inadmissibility exemptions are considered, a matter the statute commits to the Secretaries' sole unreviewable discretion, and a statutory citation with a facial link to the record satisfies Mandel.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 2 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-10-30; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
Shahi v. United States Department of State, 33 F.4th 927

Seventh Circuit, May 6, 2022. Courts cannot order a diversity visa issued after the fiscal year ends whatever relief is requested, because the statute ends eligibility, and the Mandamus Act supplies a remedy rather than jurisdiction.

ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-10-29; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law. The citation index lists 10 other decisions citing it, none a Supreme Court, BIA or Attorney General precedent or a published circuit opinion; ImmCite's status does not review them.