Mandamus decisions / Western District of North Carolina
SAEEDI v. Roark
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
It took seven years for the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to deny Saeedi's application. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
I-485 (adjustment of status)
Read by a model
After waiting the required one-year period from the date he received asylum, Saeedi submitted an I-485 application for adjustment of status to permanent resident. |
| What the suit asked for | Not recorded Read by a model |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
The Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 15) is DENIED |
| Motion decided |
Summary judgment
Read by a model
The Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 15) is DENIED; |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
The Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 15) is DENIED |
| Disposition |
Remanded to the agency
Sent back to the agency, with or without instructions.
Read by a model
The determination of USCIS is REVERSED and REMANDED, and the Defendant shall reopen and adjudicate the Plaintiff's application for adjustment of status under the appropriate legal standard; |
| Prevailing party |
Applicant
Read by a model
Such reopening and adjudicating of the Plaintiff's application shall be completed within forty-five (45) days of the date of this Order. |
| The delay claim |
Not decided here
Read by a model
Because he has an adequate means to obtain the relief he seeks, the Court does not address his request for mandamus relief. |
| The other claims |
Remanded to the agency
Read by a model
The determination of USCIS is REVERSED and REMANDED, and the Defendant shall reopen and adjudicate the Plaintiff's application for adjustment of status under the appropriate legal standard; |
| Months pending |
93.8 months from the application to the suit; 92.5 months from the application to the agency's action
Read by a model
By letter dated December 17, 2009, USCIS sent notice to Saeedi that his case had been reopened and then subsequently denied that same day. |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings |
APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails)
Read by a model
Because he has an adequate means to obtain the relief he seeks, the Court does not address his request for mandamus relief. |
| Nationality |
Iran
Read by a model
Mohammed Hossein Saeedi, is an Iranian national |
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 Fourth 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
-
Gonzalez v. Cuccinelli, 985 F.3d 357
Fourth Circuit, January 14, 2021. Courts may review delay in placing U-visa petitioners on the waitlist under the TRAC factors and should not dismiss such claims at the pleading stage, but lack jurisdiction over delay in pre-waitlist work-permit requests, a point on which the Sixth Circuit disagrees.
ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Rejected in the Sixth Circuit by Barrios Garcia v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 25 F.4th 430 (2022).
-
Lovo v. Miller, 107 F.4th 199
Fourth Circuit, July 3, 2024. The 'decision or action' language of § 1182(a)(9)(B)(v), which the court treated as coextensive with § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), does not reach USCIS inaction, so a district court may hear a claim that USCIS unreasonably delayed a provisional unlawful-presence waiver.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 5 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-07; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.