Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Massachusetts

Hassan v. Noem

District of MassachusettsDonald L. CabellDecided March 18, 2026No. 1:25-cv-11469

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
The United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (“USCIS”) rejected three I- 140 petitions filed by Budget Appliances.
Form or filing I-140 (immigrant worker petition) Read by a model
completing an Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (“I-140 petition” or “petition”).
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
Here, the plaintiff seeks review of USCIS’ rejections of one or more of the petitions and to compel USCIS to properly process the petitions.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED in its entirety.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
As noted, the defendants move to dismiss the APA claim under Rule 12(b)(6) and the MVA claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
In response, the defendants move to dismiss the complaint, specifically the MVA and APA claims.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED in its entirety.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED in its entirety.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED in its entirety.
Months pending 2.5 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
On April 3, the agency rejected the petition again due to the absence of a valid labor certification.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Mootness argument rejected Read by a model
As a result, it is not impossible for the court to grant effectual relief. Consequently, this action is not moot.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-11469
Filed
May 22, 2025
Ended
March 18, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
300 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 3 (dismissed: lack of jurisdiction)

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 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.