Mandamus decisions / District of Massachusetts

Yong Tang v. Chertoff

District of MassachusettsDecided June 26, 2007No. 1:07-cv-10231

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 This is an action to compel the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service ("USCIS") to act on a four-year-old application for adjustment of status to permanent residency.
Form or filing	I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model filed an 1-485 application on June 23, 2003, to adjust his status to permanent residency
What the suit asked for	Decide the application Read by a model seeking to compel adjudication of Tang's application for adjustment of status.
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (document # 9) is hereby DENIED.
Motion decided	Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model The government moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (document # 9) is hereby DENIED.
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 Defendants are ORDERED to adjudicate Tang's application for adjustment of status to permanent resident.
Prevailing party	Applicant Read by a model For the reasons below, I DENY the government's motion to dismiss (document # 9), and GRANT the relief sought by plaintiffs.
The delay claim	Relief ordered Read by a model Defendants are ORDERED to adjudicate Tang's application for adjustment of status to permanent resident.
Months pending	43.5 months from the application to the suit; 48.1 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model filed an 1-485 application on June 23, 2003
TRAC factors	The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings	Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model That INA § 242 does not bar review is only the first part of the jurisdictional analysis.

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. How decisions are grouped into cases.

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

How the case ended

Docket: No. 1:07-cv-10231
Filed: February 6, 2007
Ended: August 7, 2007
Suit's filing to its end: 182 days
How it ended: Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record: idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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

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.

Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233

Supreme Court, January 20, 2010. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars review only of decisions whose discretionary character is specified by statute, not discretion the agency gives itself by regulation.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328

Supreme Court, May 16, 2022. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars review of any judgment regarding the granting of the listed forms of relief, including the factual findings on which a denial of adjustment rests.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, 604 U.S. 6

Supreme Court, December 10, 2024. Revoking an approved visa petition under § 1155 is a discretionary decision or action that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) places beyond judicial review.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
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
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).
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.