Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Arizona

Kashkool v. Chertoff

District of ArizonaLawrence O. AndersonDecided April 7, 2008No. 2:07-cv-00190

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
As previously discussed, USCIS has enacted regulations that establish its mandatory duty to act on Plaintiffs I-485 application within a reasonable time.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendants to adjudicate his pending application for adjustment of status to permanent resident ("I-485" application)
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendants to adjudicate his pending application for adjustment of status to permanent resident ("I-485" application)
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
this Court concludes that it has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs Complaint and that Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Summary judgment Read by a model
This matter arises on Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment, (docket # 27) Defendants have filed a "Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment/Motion to Dismiss."
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
This matter arises on Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment, (docket # 27) Defendants have filed a "Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment/Motion to Dismiss."
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
For the reasons set forth below, this Court concludes that it has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs Complaint and that Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
The delay claim Relief ordered Read by a model
this Court concludes that it has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs Complaint and that Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
Months pending 54.9 months from the application to the suit; 69.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On July 1, 2002, Plaintiff filed an 485 application to adjust to legal permanent resident status
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the applicant
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the applicant
  • 3. Human health and welfarenot reached
  • 4. Competing prioritiesnot reached
  • 5. Interests prejudicednot reached
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
Thus, there is "no evidence that a `rule of reason' is at work in this case."
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing rejected Read by a model
Defendants have not provided evidence confirming that Plaintiffs application has been processed in a "first in, first out" fashion, nor have they provided evidence as to why the FBI needs over six years to conduct a name check on Plaintiff.
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model
in holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) does not divest this Court of jurisdiction in this matter to consider the pace at which USCIS adjudicates Plaintiffs I-485 application.
Nationality Iraq Read by a model
Plaintiff is a native and citizen of Iraq

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:07-cv-00190
Filed
January 26, 2007
Ended
July 1, 2008
Suit's filing to its end
522 days
How it ended
Judgment for the plaintiff
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for plaintiff

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

Supreme Court and Ninth 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.