Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Illinois

Sa.Z. v. United States Ctizenship and Immigration Services

Northern District of IllinoisVirginia Mary KendallDecided June 12, 2026No. 1:26-cv-06477

Read the decision Original on CourtListener

2,917 written decisions from 2,664 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 7:07 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 1,606 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,371 (85%), measured November 3, 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 USCIS later expanded this directive through Policy Memorandum PM- 602-0194, issued on January 1, 2026.
Form or filing	N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model all submitted Forms N-400 Applications for Naturalization
What the suit asked for	Some other action Read by a model They ask the Court to hold unlawful and set aside the Policy Memoranda
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model All Plaintiffs other than Sa.Z, Sa.Si, and Pa.En are dismissed without prejudice for improper joinder.
Motion decided	Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction [16] is stricken with leave to refile.
Whose motion	Cross-motions Read by a model Defendants’ Motion for Reassignment [25] is denied. All Plaintiffs other than Sa.Z, Sa.Si, and Pa.En are dismissed without prejudice for improper joinder. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction [16] is stricken with leave to refile.
Disposition	Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model All Plaintiffs other than Sa.Z, Sa.Si, and Pa.En are dismissed from this case without prejudice.
Prevailing party	Each side in part Read by a model All Plaintiffs other than Sa.Z, Sa.Si, and Pa.En are dismissed from this case without prejudice.
The delay claim	The delay claim goes on Read by a model All Plaintiffs other than Sa.Z, Sa.Si, and Pa.En are dismissed from this case without prejudice.
The other claims	Some dismissed, some go on Read by a model All Plaintiffs other than Sa.Z, Sa.Si, and Pa.En are dismissed from this case without prejudice.
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
Nationality	Iran Read by a model Plaintiffs are Iranian citizens with lawful permanent resident status in the United States.

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
Sa.Z. v. United States Ctizenship and Immigration ServicesThis decision	June 12, 2026	Virginia Mary Kendall	Dismissed in part; some claims go on
Sa.Z. v. United States Ctizenship and Immigration ServicesThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted	August 3, 2026	Virginia Mary Kendall	Denied in the applicant's favor

How the case ended

Docket: No. 1:26-cv-06477
Filed: June 2, 2026
Status: Pending as of the last docket check

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

Supreme Court and Seventh 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 3, 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
Klene v. Napolitano, 697 F.3d 666

Seventh Circuit, October 12, 2012. Section 1429 is not jurisdictional, and a district court reviewing a naturalization denial under § 1421(c) may consider declaratory relief even after removal proceedings begin.

ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Rejected by the Ninth Circuit, as recognized in Seanlim Yith v. Kirstjen Nielsen, 881 F.3d 1155 (2018).
Aljabri v. Holder, 745 F.3d 816

Seventh Circuit, March 11, 2014. Once an applicant properly invokes § 1447(b), the district court has exclusive jurisdiction over the application until remand, so a USCIS denial issued meanwhile is void and does not moot the suit.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Iddir v. INS, 301 F.3d 492

Seventh Circuit, August 6, 2002. INS had a nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate diversity-visa applications and § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) does not bar review of a failure to act, but no relief is available once the fiscal year ends.

ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Questioned by Akash Shahi v. United States Department of S, 33 F.4th 927 (2022).
Calderon-Ramirez v. McCament, 877 F.3d 272

Seventh Circuit, December 5, 2017. USCIS must process U-visa petitions within a reasonable time, but neither mandamus nor the APA offers relief to an applicant who shows nothing setting him apart from those ahead of him in the oldest-first queue.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Pak v. Biden, 91 F.4th 896

Seventh Circuit, January 31, 2024. Consular nonreviewability bars a systemic challenge to how terrorism-related inadmissibility exemptions are considered, a matter the statute commits to the Secretaries' sole unreviewable discretion, and a statutory citation with a facial link to the record satisfies Mandel.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 2 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-10-30; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
Shahi v. United States Department of State, 33 F.4th 927

Seventh Circuit, May 6, 2022. Courts cannot order a diversity visa issued after the fiscal year ends whatever relief is requested, because the statute ends eligibility, and the Mandamus Act supplies a remedy rather than jurisdiction.

ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-10-29; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law. The citation index lists 10 other decisions citing it, none a Supreme Court, BIA or Attorney General precedent or a published circuit opinion; ImmCite's status does not review them.