Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Illinois

Holasek v. United States Department of Justice

Northern District of IllinoisDecided November 28, 2000No. 1:99-cv-08003

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 Department of Justice Read by a model
against defendants, the Department of Justice, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), District Director Brian Perryman, and United States Attorney General Janet Reno seeking: to compel defendants to adjudicate their applications for adjustment of status;
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
Plaintiffs first seek to compel defendants to adjudicate their applications for adjustment of status.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs first seek to compel defendants to adjudicate their applications for adjustment of status.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Plaintiffs' complaint is dismissed under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Plaintiffs' complaint is dismissed under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before this Court is defendants' Motion to Dismiss under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Plaintiffs' complaint is dismissed under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Plaintiffs' complaint is dismissed under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
The undisputed facts establish that plaintiffs' applications have been adjudicated and denied. Therefore, plaintiffs' claim that mandamus should issue to compel adjudication of their applications is dismissed.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiffs' complaint is dismissed under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Months pending 19.5 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
On June 15, 1999, the INS notified Mr. Holasek that *1128 his application was denied because an immigrant visa was not available to him under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a)(3).
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied; Held moot Read by a model
In the instant case, the plaintiffs' application of adjustment of status has been denied, and this Court is without jurisdiction to grant any relief.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:99-cv-08003
Filed
December 9, 1999
Ended
November 28, 2000
Suit's filing to its end
355 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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

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.