Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Virginia

Safadi v. Howard

Eastern District of VirginiaThomas Selby Ellis IIIDecided December 20, 2006

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,914 written decisions from 2,661 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 1:24 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
Instead, it is a case in which USCIS is and has been processing plaintiff's adjustment of status application, but has done so at a pace plaintiff finds unsatisfactory.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
On November 11, 2002, plaintiff filed with the Texas Service Center a "Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status", ("Application").
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
As such, plaintiff filed the instant complaint to compel defendant to adjudicate his application "immediately."
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons that follow, plaintiffs complaint must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Defendant has moved to dismiss plaintiffs suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P., or alternatively, for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Fed.R.Civ.P.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendant has moved to dismiss plaintiffs suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P., or alternatively, for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Fed.R.Civ.P.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the reasons that follow, plaintiffs complaint must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons that follow, plaintiffs complaint must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the reasons that follow, plaintiffs complaint must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).
Months pending 49.3 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On November 11, 2002, plaintiff filed with the Texas Service Center a "Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status", ("Application").
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied Read by a model
For the reasons that follow, plaintiffs complaint must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).
Nationality Lebanon Read by a model
In 1983, plaintiff, a citizen of Lebanon, entered the United States as a student and ultimately earned a Ph.D. in engineering.

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 Fourth 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.