Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Wisconsin

Saleem v. Keisler

Western District of WisconsinBarbara B. CrabbDecided October 26, 2007

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
When the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services receives an alien's *1050 application for an adjustment of status, the agency conducts mandatory security background checks.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
In November 2002, after plaintiff received approval for his I-140 petition ("Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker"), he applied for status as a permanent resident under 8 U.S.C. § 1255, using Form I-485.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
The question in this case is whether a remedy in federal district court exists for the failure of immigration officials to decide a noncitizen's application for adjustment of status from nonimmigrant to permanent resident.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Mohammed Saleem's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Mohammed Saleem's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
The case is before the court on plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
Disposition Granted in the applicant's favor The principal motion was granted in full: summary judgment for either side, an injunction or TRO, a writ or order to act, fees. A motion to dismiss granted in full counts as Dismissed; a transfer is listed apart. Read by a model
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Mohammed Saleem's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment in favor of plaintiff and close the case.
The delay claim Relief ordered Read by a model
Defendants Peter Keisler, Michael Chertoff, Kay Leopold, Ruth Dorochoff and Emilio Gonzales may have until December 24, 2007 within which to adjudicate plaintiffs application for an adjustment of status.
Months pending 59.3 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
In November 2002, after plaintiff received approval for his I-140 petition ("Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker"), he applied for status as a permanent resident under 8 U.S.C. § 1255, using Form I-485.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the applicant
  • 2. Congressional timetablenot reached
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesnot reached
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
Without any explanation from defendants for their failure to reach a decision on plaintiffs application, I must conclude that defendants' five-year delay is not reasonable.
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model
Because plaintiff's claim is premised on defendants' refusal to make a "decision" or to take "action" on his application, I must conclude that § 1252(a)(2)(B) is not implicated in this case.
Nationality India Read by a model
Plaintiff Mohammed Saleem is a citizen of India.

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 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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.