How Courts Handle Mandamus Lawsuits in Immigration Cases

a courtroom with a flag and a flag on the wall
Picture of Shawn Sedaghat, Esq.

Shawn Sedaghat, Esq.

The Shawn S. Sedaghat Law Firm

When an immigration application is stuck in administrative limbo for an unreasonable amount of time, many applicants consider filing a writ of mandamus to force the government to take action. A writ of mandamus is a legal petition asking a federal court to compel a government agency—such as U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) or the Department of State—to process a delayed immigration case. However, filing a mandamus lawsuit does not guarantee a favorable outcome, and courts apply specific legal standards when reviewing these cases.

Federal courts play a limited but important role in mandamus lawsuits. Their job is not to approve or deny immigration applications but to determine whether an agency’s delay in processing a case is unreasonable. Courts analyze factors such as statutory deadlines, government justifications for the delay, and the impact on the applicant before making a decision. Some cases result in court orders forcing agency action, while others are dismissed if the government proves the delay is justified.

This article explores how courts handle mandamus lawsuits in immigration cases, including key legal standards, court precedents, government defenses, and possible outcomes. Understanding how judges evaluate these cases can help applicants decide whether a writ of mandamus is the right strategy for resolving their immigration delays.

a man standing in front of a podium with people behind him

Understanding the Role of Federal Courts in Mandamus Lawsuits

What Is a Writ of Mandamus?

A writ of mandamus is a legal petition asking a federal court to order a government agency to perform a duty that it is legally required to do but has unreasonably delayed. In the immigration context, this means asking the court to compel USCIS, the Department of State, or another agency to process an application or petition that has been pending for an excessive amount of
time. However, a writ of mandamus does not require the agency to approve the application—it only forces the agency to take action and issue a decision, whether that decision is approval or denial.

Jurisdiction of Federal Courts Over Immigration-Related Mandamus Petitions

Federal courts have jurisdiction to hear mandamus cases under the Mandamus Act (28 U.S.C. § 1361) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. § 706). These laws give courts the power to review agency inaction when an applicant can prove:

 

  1. The agency has a clear duty to act on the immigration application.
  2. The applicant has a clear right to a decision on their application.
  3. The agency has failed to act within a reasonable time, causing unnecessary delays.

Most mandamus petitions are filed in U.S. District Courts, where judges determine whether the agency’s delay is legally justified.

Limits of Judicial Authority in Mandamus Cases

While federal courts have the power to compel agency action, they cannot:

  • Order the approval of an application—they can only require the agency to issue a decision.
  • Interfere in discretionary decisions—for example, the court cannot force USCIS to grant a green card or a visa; it can only require USCIS to decide on the case.
  • Override national security or policy considerations—courts often defer to the agency when delays are caused by background checks, security screenings, or policy changes.

Because of these limitations, applicants must carefully assess whether their mandamus lawsuit is likely to succeed before filing.

How Courts Evaluate Unreasonable Delay

When reviewing a writ of mandamus, courts must determine whether the delay in processing an immigration case is legally unreasonable. Because there is no fixed rule defining what constitutes an unreasonable delay, courts use a case-by-case analysis based on legal standards and past precedents. One of the most widely used tests for evaluating agency delay is the TRAC Six-Factor Test, established in TRAC v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1984).

The TRAC Six-Factor Test (Based on TRAC v. FCC)

Courts apply the following six factors when assessing whether a delay is so unreasonable that judicial intervention is warranted:

1. Whether There Is a Statutory Deadline for Agency Action

  • Some immigration processes have statutory deadlines, such as the requirement that USCIS issue a naturalization decision within 120 days of an applicant’s interview (8 U.S.C. § 1447(b)).
  • If the agency has missed a legally mandated deadline, courts are more likely to find the delay unreasonable.

2. Whether the Delay Is Egregious Compared to Other Cases

  • Courts compare the applicant’s waiting time to the average processing time for similar cases.
  • If an applicant’s case has been delayed for far longer than others in the same category, courts may consider the delay unreasonable.

3. Whether the Delay Is Harming the Applicant

  • Courts consider whether the delay causes significant hardship, such as:
    o Family separation (e.g., waiting years for a spouse’s visa).
    o Employment issues (e.g., a work visa delay affecting job security).
  • Inability to travel due to pending status.
  • The more severe the consequences, the more likely courts are to intervene.

4. Whether Higher-Priority Cases Justify the Delay

  • Agencies prioritize certain applications, such as humanitarian cases or national security-related screenings.
  • If the government proves that the applicant’s delay is due to higher-priority cases, courts may allow the delay to continue.

5. Whether Expediting the Case Would Disrupt Agency Operations

  • Courts assess whether ordering immediate action in one case would negatively impact the agency’s ability to process other applications.
  • If expediting the applicant’s case would unfairly move them ahead of others, the court may hesitate to intervene.

6. Whether the Delay Is Caused by Agency Resource Limitations

  • If the delay is due to a backlog, staffing shortages, or funding issues, courts are generally more lenient toward the agency.
  • However, a court may still rule in favor of the applicant if the delay is excessive and unexplained.

Example Case: Yu v. Brown, 36 F. Supp. 2d 922 (D.N.M. 1999)

  • In Yu v. Brown, an immigrant filed a mandamus petition after waiting four years for a decision on his adjustment of status application.
  • The government argued that the delay was due to administrative backlog and security checks.
  • The court ruled in favor of the applicant, finding that a four-year delay was unreasonable under the TRAC test.
  • This case is often cited as an example of when a court forces the government to act on a long-pending immigration application.

Courts use the TRAC Six-Factor Test to balance the applicant’s need for resolution with the government’s administrative constraints. In the next section, we will examine common government defenses in mandamus lawsuits and how courts respond to them.

a group of people in a courtroom

Common Government Defenses in Mandamus Cases

When an applicant files a writ of mandamus, the government does not always process the application right away. Instead, the agency’s attorneys may challenge the lawsuit using various legal defenses. The most common government arguments include motions to dismiss, jurisdictional challenges, and security-related justifications.

Motion to Dismiss – The Government Argues That the Delay Is Not Unreasonable

  • One of the most frequent responses is a motion to dismiss, where the government claims that the delay does not meet the legal standard for being “unreasonable” under the TRAC test.
  • The agency may argue that the delay is:
    o Within normal processing times for similar cases.
    o Caused by agency backlog or resource constraints.
    o Not causing severe harm to the applicant.
  • If the court agrees, it may dismiss the case, forcing the applicant to wait for further agency action.

Jurisdictional Challenges – The Government Claims the Court Lacks Authority

  • The government may argue that federal courts lack jurisdiction to intervene in immigration matters.
  • Some courts have ruled that they cannot review discretionary agency decisions, such as visa approvals under the doctrine of consular nonreview ability.
  • If a judge accepts this argument, the case is dismissed without requiring the agency to act.

Security and Background Checks – The Agency Argues That Security Concerns
Justify Extended Processing Times

  • The government often cites national security concerns as a reason for delays, particularly in cases involving:
    o Security screenings and background checks under programs like Controlled Application Review and Resolution Program (CARRP).
    o Visa applicants from high-risk countries requiring additional clearance.
  • While courts generally defer to agencies on security matters, indefinite delays without justification may still warrant intervention.

Case Example: Gelfer v. Chertoff, No. C 06-06724 WHA (N.D. Cal. 2007)

  • The applicant filed a writ of mandamus due to indefinite delays caused by an FBI background check.
  • The court found that the government had no specific timeline for completing the security check.
  • Ruling: The court granted relief, stating that an undefined and indefinite delay was unreasonable under the APA.

Possible Court Decisions in Mandamus Cases

The outcome of a mandamus lawsuit depends on the facts of the case, the judge’s interpretation of the law, and how the government responds. Federal courts can:

  1. Order the agency to act and resolve the delay.
  2. Dismiss the case, siding with the government.
  3. Encourage a settlement, leading to agency action without a formal ruling.

Court Orders the Agency to Act


  • If the court finds that the delay is unreasonable, it may issue an order compelling the agency to take action within a specific timeframe.
  • This ruling does not guarantee approval—it only forces the agency to make a decision.

Example Case: Singh v. Still, 470 F. Supp. 2d 1064 (N.D. Cal. 2007)

  • A naturalization applicant had been waiting for over four years for a decision.
  • USCIS claimed that an FBI name check was pending, but the court found the delay unjustified.
  • Ruling: The court ordered USCIS to adjudicate the case within 30 days.

Court Dismisses the Case

  • Sometimes, the judge agrees with the government and dismisses the case.
  • Common reasons for dismissal:
    o The applicant has not exhausted all administrative remedies, such as submitting service requests or contacting Congress.
    o The delay is not excessive compared to other similar cases.
    o The court lacks jurisdiction over the issue.

Example Case: Hussein v. Beecroft, No. 2:19-cv-13638 (E.D. Mich. 2020)

  • The applicant filed a mandamus petition seeking action on a visa application delay.
  • The court ruled that the applicant had not taken all available administrative steps before filing.
  • Ruling: The case was dismissed, requiring the applicant to wait or seek other remedies.

Court Negotiates a Settlement or Agreement

  • Many mandamus lawsuits are resolved before the court issues a ruling.
  • The government may agree to process the application within a set timeframe to avoid a
    formal court decision.

Example Case: Kerr v. USCIS, No. 1:20-cv-02245 (D.D.C. 2021)

  • The applicant filed a mandamus lawsuit after waiting over two years for a visa decision.
  • Before the court could rule, USCIS agreed to adjudicate the case within 60 days.
  • Ruling: The case was voluntarily dismissed after the agency took action.

These outcomes show that writs of mandamus can be effective, but success depends on the strength of the case and how the court evaluates the government’s justification for the delay. In the next section, we will discuss the impact of mandamus lawsuits on immigration processing and whether they are a viable long-term solution.

The Impact of Mandamus Lawsuits on Immigration Processing

Mandamus lawsuits play a critical role in holding immigration agencies accountable for unreasonable delays. While they do not guarantee a favorable outcome, they often pressure agencies to take action and resolve long-pending cases.


How Mandamus Lawsuits Pressure Agencies to Address Long-Pending Cases

  • When an applicant files a writ of mandamus, it forces the agency to justify the delay in federal court.
  • Agencies often choose to resolve the case quickly rather than spend resources defending the delay in litigation.
  • Mandamus petitions help expose systemic delays and create legal pressure for agencies to improve processing times.

The Increasing Use of Mandamus Petitions in Visa and Green Card Delays

  • The number of mandamus lawsuits has risen in recent years due to backlogs at USCIS, the State Department, and immigration courts.
  • Common areas where mandamus petitions have become more frequent:
    o Visa applications stuck in & administrative processing.
    o Green card and adjustment of status delays.
    o Naturalization applications held up due to prolonged background checks.
  • Due to increased litigation, some agencies are prioritizing cases where a mandamus lawsuit is likely to be filed.

When a Mandamus Lawsuit Is Most Likely to Succeed Based on Past Rulings

  • Courts are more likely to grant relief when:
    o The delay exceeds normal processing times and lacks a valid justification.
    o The applicant has exhausted all administrative remedies before filing.

o The delay causes significant harm (e.g., family separation, job loss).

  • Courts are less likely to grant relief when:
    o The government provides a legitimate reason for the delay, such as ongoing security checks.
    o The case involves discretionary decisions (e.g., visa refusals under consular nonreviewability).

Mandamus lawsuits can be effective in cases of unjustified administrative delay, but they are not
a guaranteed solution for every applicant.

Conclusion: Should You File a Mandamus Lawsuit?

Filing a writ of mandamus is a powerful legal tool, but it requires careful consideration. While some applicants see fast results, others may face government pushback or case dismissal.

Summary of How Courts Handle Mandamus Cases

  • Federal courts evaluate whether a delay is unreasonable based on legal standards like the TRAC test.
  • Possible court outcomes include:
    o Ordering the agency to act on the application.
    o Dismissing the case if the delay is justified.
    o Negotiating a resolution, leading to agency action without a formal ruling.

The Importance of Legal Strategy in Filing a Petition

  • A strong legal strategy increases the chances of success.
  • Applicants should:
    o Exhaust administrative remedies (e.g., service requests, congressional inquiries) before filing.
    o Consult an immigration attorney to assess the case’s strength.
    o Prepare for possible government defenses, such as security check justifications or jurisdictional challenges.

Next Steps for Applicants Experiencing Unreasonable Delays

  • If your immigration case has been stuck for an excessive period, consider:
    1. Checking processing times on USCIS or the State Department’s website.
    2. Submitting service requests or contacting the USCIS Ombudsman.
    3. Seeking congressional assistance to push the agency for a decision.

4. Consulting an attorney to determine whether a mandamus lawsuit is the best option.

 

A writ of mandamus can be a game-changer for applicants facing unreasonable immigration delays, but success depends on strong legal arguments, careful preparation, and an understanding of court precedents.

Scroll to Top