Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Connecticut

Bartolini v. Ashcroft

District of ConnecticutAlvin W. ThompsonDecided September 30, 2002

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 plaintiffs, Joann Bartolini ("Bartolini") and Jacques Latif ("Latif"), bring this action seeking an order to compel the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS") to adjudicate Latif's application for adjustment of his immigration status.
Form or filing I-130 (relative petition); I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
Thus, it appears that the plaintiffs are seeking that the INS adjudicate both the I-130 petition and the I-485 application.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Thus, it appears that the plaintiffs are seeking that the INS adjudicate both the I-130 petition and the I-485 application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For these reasons, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 7) is hereby GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
The defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Accordingly, the complaint in this case fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and it should be dismissed.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For these reasons, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 7) is hereby GRANTED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, the complaint in this case fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and it should be dismissed.
Months pending 11.1 months from the application to the suit; 20.7 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On the basis of his second marriage, Latif executed a second application for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident on or about December 29, 2000, which was received on January 8, 2001.
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 Second 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.