Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Minnesota

Ngwanyia v. Gonzales

District of MinnesotaDecided July 12, 2005

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
Effective March 1, 2003, the INS was abolished and its immigration benefits and services functions were transferred to the newly created Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services division within the Department of Homeland Security.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
All asylees in the United States who have applied for adjustment of status to lawful permanent residence and whose applications for adjustment remain pending
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs alleged Defendants violated: (1) 8 U.S.C. § 1159(b) by violating Plaintiffs' right to adjust their status and by delaying their adjustment pursuant to that statute;
Kind of order A stipulated or agreed order Read by a model
The proposed Settlement Agreement dated January 31, 2005 is APPROVED as fair, reasonable, and adequate pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e).
Motion decided Other motion to dismiss Read by a model
The Joint Motion For Court Approval of Settlement and to Dismiss (Doc. No. 129) is GRANTED;
Whose motion A joint request Read by a model
The Joint Motion For Court Approval of Settlement and to Dismiss (Doc. No. 129) is GRANTED
Disposition Stipulated or agreed order An order the parties asked for together, or the plaintiff's own dismissal. Not counted as either side's win. Read by a model
The proposed Settlement Agreement dated January 31, 2005 is APPROVED as fair, reasonable, and adequate pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e).
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
The proposed Settlement Agreement dated January 31, 2005 is APPROVED as fair, reasonable, and adequate pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e).
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, pursuant to paragraph 15(a) of the Settlement Agreement
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, pursuant to paragraph 15(a) of the Settlement Agreement
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

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 Eighth 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.