Mandamus decisions / District of Puerto Rico
NG v. US Citizenship and Immigration Services
Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener
2,948 written decisions from 2,691 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided November 10, 2026. Updated November 11, 2026 at 1:21 p.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 1,632 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,398 (86%), measured November 11, 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
However, they allege that USCIS is unreasonably delaying adjudication of the Petition in bad faith so that Mr. Cen Mo is removed. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
I-130 (relative petition)
Read by a model
On June 7, 2025, Amy NG filed a Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative (the “Petition”), on behalf of her husband with codefendant the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (“USCIS”); |
| What the suit asked for |
Decide the application
Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiffs request that the Court set an immediate hearing and order defendants to adjudicate the Petition before March 22, 2026. |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion at Docket No. 3. |
| Motion decided |
Preliminary injunction or TRO
Read by a model
Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Expedited Preliminary Injunction and Request an Immediate Hearing |
| Whose motion |
The plaintiff's motion
Read by a model
Plaintiffs Amy NG (“Ms. NG”) and Roberto Cen Mo (“Mr. Cen Mo”)’s (collectively “Plaintiffs”) Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Expedited Preliminary Injunction and Request an Immediate Hearing |
| Disposition |
Denied in the government's favor
The principal motion was denied in full: a motion to dismiss denied so the case goes on, or relief denied on the merits.
Read by a model
In the absence of any statutory or jurisprudential authority to support their request, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion at Docket No. 3. |
| Prevailing party |
Government
Read by a model
In the absence of any statutory or jurisprudential authority to support their request, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion at Docket No. 3. |
| The delay claim |
Relief denied
Read by a model
In the absence of any statutory or jurisprudential authority to support their request, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion at Docket No. 3. |
| Months pending |
8.9 months from the application to the suit; 8.9 months from the application to the court's decision
Read by a model
On June 7, 2025, Amy NG filed a Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings | None Read by a model |
| I-130 category |
Immediate relative
Read by a model
(1) Ms. NG is a United States Citizen; (2) she is married to Mr. Cen Mo, who is not a United States Citizen; |
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 First 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 11, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.
-
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55
Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Towns of Wellesley, Concord & Norwood v. FERC, 829 F.2d 275
First Circuit, September 25, 1987. The First Circuit applies the TRAC factors when asked to compel agency action that has been unreasonably delayed.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Patel v. Jaddou, 118 F.4th 475
First Circuit, October 16, 2024. Assuming statutory jurisdiction, § 1255(a) does not forbid USCIS from holding adjustment applications until a visa number is immediately available, so no § 706(1) claim lies against the abeyance policy; the Fourth Circuit rejects deciding the merits before the § 1252(a)(2)(B) question.
ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Reasoning rejected in the Fourth Circuit by Lolakshi Kale v. Angelica Alfonso-Royals, 139 F.4th 329 (2025).