Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Georgia

Orabi v. Chertoff

Northern District of GeorgiaJack T. CampDecided December 27, 2007No. 1:07-cv-01453

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
Since that time, Saadi's application has not been adjudicated by CIS.
Form or filing I-130 (relative petition); I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
In February 2004, Lisa filed an 1-130 petition for alien relative on behalf of Saadi, and Saadi filed an 1-485 application to adjust his status to lawful permanent resident.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs bring this action seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Defendants to adjudicate their pending immigration petitions.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss [# 3], DISMISSES Plaintiffs' Complaint [# 1], and DIRECTS the Clerk to CLOSE this case.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the Court lacks jurisdiction over this case. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss [# 3], DISMISSES Plaintiffs' Complaint [# 1], and DIRECTS the Clerk to CLOSE this case.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Pending before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss [# 3].
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss [# 3], DISMISSES Plaintiffs' Complaint [# 1], and DIRECTS the Clerk to CLOSE this case.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss [# 3], DISMISSES Plaintiffs' Complaint [# 1], and DIRECTS the Clerk to CLOSE this case.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss [# 3], DISMISSES Plaintiffs' Complaint [# 1], and DIRECTS the Clerk to CLOSE this case.
Months pending 46.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
In February 2004, Lisa filed an 1-130 petition for alien relative on behalf of Saadi, and Saadi filed an 1-485 application to adjust his status to lawful permanent resident.
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
Therefore, pursuant to § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case.
Nationality Syria Read by a model
Plaintiff Saadi Nizar Orabi ("Saadi"), a citizen and native of Syria
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
On July 1, 2003, Saadi married Plaintiff Lisa Orabi ("Lisa"), a citizen and native of the United States.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:07-cv-01453
Filed
June 21, 2007
Ended
December 27, 2007
Suit's filing to its end
189 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.

Supreme Court and Eleventh 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.