Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Illinois

Paunescu v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Northern District of IllinoisRobert William GettlemanDecided December 2, 1999

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 rule
to timely apply for naturalization or citizenship and are later denied citizenship ask courts to use their equitable powers to reverse the denial. See, e.g., INS v. Pangilinan, 486 U.S.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
Plaintiffs once again ask the court to order defendants to complete the processing of plaintiffs' adjustment of status.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs once again ask the court to order defendants to complete the processing of plaintiffs' adjustment of status.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, the court denies defendants' motion for summary judgment and grants plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
Accordingly, the court denies defendants' motion for summary judgment and grants plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
Accordingly, the court denies defendants' motion for summary judgment and grants plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.
Disposition Granted in the applicant's favor The principal motion was granted in full: summary judgment for either side, an injunction or TRO, a writ or order to act, fees. A motion to dismiss granted in full counts as Dismissed; a transfer is listed apart. Read by a model
Accordingly, the court denies defendants' motion for summary judgment and grants plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
Accordingly, the court denies defendants' motion for summary judgment and grants plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.
The delay claim Relief ordered Read by a model
The court therefore follows Marcetic and orders defendants to process plaintiffs' applications and to grant plaintiffs all relief to which they would have been entitled had defendants processed their applications in a timely fashion.
Months pending 10.6 months from the application to the suit; 24.9 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
The Department of Justice received plaintiffs' applications on November 5, 1997.
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
The court therefore follows Marcetic and orders defendants to process plaintiffs' applications and to grant plaintiffs all relief to which they would have been entitled had defendants processed their applications in a timely fashion.
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model
Because plaintiffs have neither been denied nor granted relief, § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) does not bar jurisdiction.

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 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.