Mandamus decisions / District of Massachusetts

Yong Tang v. Chertoff

District of MassachusettsDecided March 1, 2010

Read the decision Original 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 The fees stemmed from the complaint they filed on February 6, 2007, seeking to compel the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service ("USCIS") to act on their application for permanent residency.
Form or filing	I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model Yong Tang filed an I-485 application on June 23, 2003, to adjust his status to that of a permanent resident, with his wife Yan Luo as a derivative beneficiary.
What the suit asked for	Decide the application Read by a model The fees stemmed from the complaint they filed on February 6, 2007, seeking to compel the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service ("USCIS") to act on their application for permanent residency.
Kind of order	An order on fees Read by a model MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: ATTORNEY'S FEES
Motion decided	Fees under EAJA Read by a model On September 5, 2007, plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion for attorney's fees and costs under the EAJA.
Whose motion	The plaintiff's motion Read by a model Plaintiffs Yong Tang and his wife, Yan Luo, have moved for an award of attorney's fees in the amount of $6,250.00 and court costs in the amount of $250.00.
Disposition	Attorney's fees An order on attorney's fees or costs after the case, counted for the side that won the fee motion. Read by a model MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: ATTORNEY'S FEES
Prevailing party	Applicant Read by a model MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: ATTORNEY'S FEES
The delay claim	Not decided here Read by a model MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: ATTORNEY'S FEES
Months pending	43.5 months from the application to the suit; 48.9 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model Defendants were ordered to adjudicate plaintiffs' application for adjustment of status. [2] On July 19, 2007, the government did so; both plaintiffs became permanent residents of the United States.
TRAC factors	The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings	None Read by a model

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision, this one. How decisions are grouped into cases.

Decision	Decided	Judge	Disposition
Yong Tang v. Chertoff	June 26, 2007		Granted in the applicant's favor
Yong Tang v. ChertoffThis decisionThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted	March 1, 2010		Attorney's fees

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 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.

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
Towns of Wellesley, Concord & Norwood v. FERC, 829 F.2d 275

First Circuit, September 25, 1987. The First Circuit applies the TRAC factors when asked to compel agency action that has been unreasonably delayed.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 5 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-13; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
Patel v. Jaddou, 118 F.4th 475

First Circuit, October 16, 2024. Assuming statutory jurisdiction, § 1255(a) does not forbid USCIS from holding adjustment applications until a visa number is immediately available, so no § 706(1) claim lies against the abeyance policy; the Fourth Circuit rejects deciding the merits before the § 1252(a)(2)(B) question.

ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Reasoning rejected in the Fourth Circuit by Lolakshi Kale v. Angelica Alfonso-Royals, 139 F.4th 329 (2025).