Copyright 2023 Ernest Goodman Law Firm - Los Angeles - New York.
All Rights Reserved.

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Our Opening Hours Mon. - Fri.


Call Us.




Writ of Mandamus Lawsuits

Ethics Before Profits
Law Offices of Ernest Goodman > Immigration Law  > Writ of Mandamus Lawsuits

Writ of Mandamus Lawsuits

The Writ of Mandamus: Insights and Clarifications

Hello everyone, today’s topic is the writ of mandamus, a concept that often comes with its share of misunderstandings. For those interested in the historical context, this type of lawsuit has its origins in Medieval England, where it was primarily used in criminal matters. However, feel free to skip the historical part if history isn’t your cup of tea.

In modern America, the use of a writ of mandamus has evolved to address instances of undue delay by government officials. It’s important to dispel a common misconception here: not every delay signifies an ‘undue delay’. Regular case backlogs do not automatically fall under the category of undue delay, which is characterized by significant and unjustifiable deviations from standard processing times.

The term ‘writ of mandamus’ originates from Latin, meaning a command or order. In the current legal framework, it serves as an important instrument to ensure timely and appropriate action by government entities, particularly when routine processes stall without valid reasons.

Understanding the Writ of Mandamus in Federal Court

Definition of Writ of Mandamus A Writ of Mandamus refers to a legal proceeding in the Federal District Court which oversees the particular legal matter in question. This action is typically pursued in situations such as an unjust refusal of an N400 (after a preceding denial of an N336), or in instances of prolonged decision-making on immigration cases like N400, I-485, I-130, and others. The essence of a Writ of Mandamus is to petition the District Court to compel the concerned agency to undertake the required action.

The Nature of Action Enforced The term “take action” is quite literal in this context. It does not compel the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to approve an immigration benefit. Rather, the aim is to prompt USCIS to process and decide on the pending petition or application. When a mandamus action is initiated, an Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) gets appointed to handle the case. In this scenario, your legal representative has the opportunity to engage with the AUSA, negotiating on your behalf. These negotiations often encourage the responsible Field Office to act on the petition or application in question, leading to a potential voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit.

Outcome of Mandamus Lawsuits Many of these lawsuits conclude when the Field Office undertakes the actions it was originally supposed to perform, such as granting Naturalization, scheduling oath ceremonies, or deciding on adjustments of status. When this happens, the Writ of Mandamus becomes redundant or “moot.”

Practicality of Filing a Writ of Mandamus Initiating a mandamus action against the government might appear impractical at first glance. However, when all alternative avenues have been exhausted and an individual continues to face unwarranted delays, this legal step often emerges as the sole effective solution to expedite the resolution of these delays.

History of Mandamus lawsuits

Again, if you are not into history, you can skip this part.

A mandamus lawsuit, commonly referred to as a “writ of mandamus,” is a court order compelling a government official, corporation, or another entity, or lower court to fulfill their official duties or correct an abuse of discretion. The history of mandamus lawsuits spans several centuries and is deeply intertwined with the development of legal systems, particularly in England and later in the United States.

Origins in English Law

  1. Early Development (12th – 15th Century): The origins of mandamus can be traced back to the English legal system during the 12th and 13th centuries. It evolved from the Royal Prerogative, where the King had the authority to issue commands under the common law. Over time, this prerogative power was delegated to the King’s courts.
  2. Formalization (16th – 17th Century): The writ of mandamus became more formalized during the Tudor period in England. It was primarily used to compel public officials to fulfill their duties and was issued by the Court of King’s Bench.

Expansion and Evolution

  1. 17th – 18th Century: During this period, the scope of mandamus expanded. It began to be used more broadly to address failures of justice and administrative inaction. The writ became a pivotal tool in the development of the English administrative law.
  2. American Adoption (Late 18th Century): With the colonization of America, the concept of mandamus was incorporated into the American legal system. After the American Revolution, it became an integral part of U.S. law, with its principles embedded in the Judiciary Act of 1789.

Mandamus in the United States

  1. Judiciary Act of 1789: This Act authorized the federal courts to issue writs of mandamus to public officials. The most famous early case involving a mandamus action in the U.S. is Marbury v. Madison (1803), which established the principle of judicial review.
  2. 19th – 20th Century: Throughout these centuries, the use of mandamus evolved in the U.S., particularly in terms of its applicability to different branches of government and its role in enforcing constitutional rights.
  3. Modern Usage: In modern times, mandamus is used as a remedy in situations where no other adequate remedy exists, particularly in administrative law to compel government agencies to act according to law. It is also employed in cases where lower courts or public officials have failed to exercise their duties.

Understanding Undue Delay in Immigration Processes

Defining Undue Delay The term ‘undue delay’ in immigration context refers to a scenario where the processing of an immigration benefit takes more time than what is normally expected. The legal framework provides specific timelines for the adjudication of various immigration benefits. However, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has the discretion to extend these timelines based on “processing times.” This extension is often due to the volume of applications and petitions they handle, allowing them to operate beyond the standard regulatory timeframes.

Responding to Delays When petitions or applications exceed these extended processing times, it is advisable for the petitioner or applicant to take proactive steps. A common but less effective approach is directly calling USCIS. It’s crucial to understand that USCIS call center operators (Tier1/Tier2) are not equipped to resolve specific issues or provide legal advice.

Recommended Approach for Addressing Delays The most effective way to address delays is through written correspondence. This approach ensures that there is a record of your inquiry. Utilizing the USCIS online inquiry system is beneficial as it provides documented evidence of your concern regarding the delay in processing your case.

Additional Steps to Consider Apart from the USCIS inquiry system, individuals can also seek assistance through the USCIS Ombudsman. This entity acts as an intermediary and can provide additional support in resolving your issue. If these methods do not yield results, seeking help from congressional representatives is another viable option. Each state has senators whose offices include divisions dedicated to handling such immigration-related inquiries.

Legal Recourse in Cases of Unresolved Delays In situations where all these steps fail to resolve the delay, individuals have the option to pursue legal action against the government. This is typically done through filing a writ of mandamus, a legal petition that compels the government to expedite the processing of the delayed immigration matter.

The Role of a Writ of Mandamus in Immigration Delays

Purpose and Function A writ of mandamus serves as a crucial legal tool in addressing unwarranted delays in the immigration process. Such delays can significantly disrupt lives, leaving individuals in a state of uncertainty. When an immigration application is submitted, there is an inherent right to receive a timely decision. The U.S. government, under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), is obligated to render a decision on each immigration application within a reasonable timeframe. In instances where there are unjustifiable delays, filing a writ of mandamus in a federal court acts as a lever to compel the government to adhere to this legal duty. This remains applicable even in periods of uncertainty, such as during the challenges posed by the coronavirus pandemic.

Impact on Immigration Applications While a writ of mandamus does not assure the approval of an immigration application, it effectively removes the case from a state of indefinite suspension. It mandates the government to actively review the application, assess the presented evidence, and proceed with a decision. This becomes particularly relevant when all other methods to track the status of an application have been unsuccessful. In such scenarios, a mandamus lawsuit can be the decisive factor in obtaining a resolution, thereby allowing individuals to progress with their immigration journey.

In summary, the writ of mandamus emerges as a potent remedy for those facing excessive delays in their immigration process, ensuring that their applications receive the attention and decision they legally deserve.

Processing Time and Effectiveness of Writ of Mandamus Actions

Timeline for Resolution Typically, the process of a writ of mandamus tends to be relatively swift. On average, results from such actions are seen within 30 to 60 days, with the timeline rarely extending beyond 90 days. During this period, the relevant U.S. embassy or the USCIS is legally obliged to provide their official response to the mandamus order in a court of law.

Success Rate of Mandamus Cases Writs of mandamus have an impressively high rate of success, with about 99% of these cases being expedited and processed more rapidly, often without the need for a prolonged court contest. However, it’s important to note that while a writ of mandamus compels a timely decision from USCIS, it does not inherently ensure the approval of the petition or application in question.

Navigating Green Card Processing Delays

Understanding the Commonality of Delays Experiencing delays in green card processing is a situation many find themselves in, and it’s crucial to recognize that such delays are often part of a broader systemic issue. Presently, the federal immigration courts are grappling with unprecedented backlogs, which significantly impacts processing times.

Factors Influencing Green Card Processing Times Several key factors are contributing to the extended wait times for green card applications:

  • Administrative Processing Complexities: Common applications like the I-485 (Application for Adjustment of Status) and N-400 (Application for Naturalization) undergo a multi-tiered administrative process. This journey through various channels can considerably slow down the overall processing. It’s not uncommon for applications to encounter bottlenecks at different stages, leading to generalized responses from immigration agencies like “pending,” “under review,” or “under investigation.”
  • Background Checks and Security Clearances: A critical and time-consuming aspect of the green card process involves thorough background checks and security clearances, conducted by USCIS in collaboration with multiple federal agencies. These procedures are stringent, and in the post-9/11 era, the level of scrutiny has intensified. This can sometimes lead to prolonged delays, especially in cases where profiling based on the applicant’s name or country of origin occurs, despite the applicant having a clean background and no criminal record.

Understanding these factors can provide context to the delays and help set realistic expectations regarding the time it might take for the processing of green card applications. Patience and persistence are key, and staying informed about the status of your application and potential legal remedies can help navigate this challenging process.

Navigating the Mandamus Complaint Process

Initial Steps After Filing a Mandamus Complaint Upon drafting a mandamus complaint in response to the government’s undue delay in processing your immigration petition, the next steps are critical in the legal process. This complaint is essentially your formal response to the government’s inaction and serves as the foundation for the mandamus action.

Filing and Serving the Mandamus Complaint The legal journey begins with the plaintiff – you, in this case, seeking to challenge the government – filing the mandamus complaint in a federal court. This involves submitting several key documents: the complaint itself, a civil cover sheet, summons, and the necessary court filing fees.

Once these documents are filed, your next obligation is to serve them to the defendants. In the context of an immigration petition, the defendants typically include the responsible government agencies and individuals, such as the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Service of the complaint and summons must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 4(i), which outlines the proper procedures for serving legal documents to the government.

Engaging with the U.S. Attorney’s Office An additional, though not a defendant in the traditional sense, is the U.S. Attorney’s Office. This office will act as legal representation for the government in your case. Therefore, serving the U.S. Attorney’s Office with your complaint and summons is also necessary. It’s advisable to contact the local U.S. Attorney’s Office to inquire about their preferred method of service, especially considering the potential restrictions and adjustments due to the Covid-19 pandemic, which may impact standard in-person service protocols.

By following these steps diligently, you ensure that your legal challenge against the government’s delay in your immigration case is set on a firm footing, adhering to the required legal norms and procedures.

Anticipating the Government’s Response in a Mandamus Action

Initial Government Response Timeline Once your mandamus complaint and summons have been duly served, the government is allocated a period of 60 days to formally respond to your complaint. During this initial phase, you might not observe any immediate action or communication from the government’s side, leading to a period of relative quiet.

Potential Courses of Government Action When the government does address your complaint, it generally has two main avenues to consider: engaging in a settlement or opting to contest the complaint. The possibility of a settlement will be explored later in this discussion.

If the decision is to contest, the government’s response typically takes one of two forms. The first is a straightforward answer to your complaint, acknowledging and responding to the points raised. The second, and a more legally strategic approach, is to file a motion to dismiss under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This motion is a procedural step where the government argues that, even if all your allegations are true, they do not constitute a legal basis for a claim, essentially requesting the court to dismiss the case at this early stage.

Understanding these potential responses helps in preparing for the next steps in your legal strategy and managing expectations about the timeline and progression of your mandamus action.

Explaining the Motion to Dismiss in Legal Terms

Purpose of a Motion to Dismiss A motion to dismiss is a legal request made to a court, typically by the defendant—in this case, the government. The essence of this motion is to argue that even if all allegations made by you, the plaintiff, are assumed to be true, they do not constitute a valid legal claim. It’s important to note that this type of motion is a standard legal maneuver often employed to potentially terminate a lawsuit at an early stage.

Interpreting the Motion It’s crucial to understand that a motion to dismiss represents only one side’s perspective—here, the government’s. This motion is not an absolute reflection of the merits of your case. Instead, it’s a procedural step, a part of the legal process where the government effectively says, “Even accepting the plaintiff’s allegations as true, these do not amount to a legal violation warranting action by the court.”

To put it in a simpler context, imagine being sued for reading too many blog posts. Your natural response might be, “What’s the issue? Even if I read numerous blog posts, that’s not illegal or wrong.” That’s the crux of what the government argues in a motion to dismiss.

Implications for Your Case In the context of delayed immigration petitions, the government’s use of a motion to dismiss doesn’t automatically imply the weakness of your complaint. If your complaint is well-structured and articulates valid legal points (as per the guidance provided), it stands a good chance of withstanding the motion to dismiss. This means that the court could decide that your case has enough merit to proceed, despite the government’s argument to the contrary.

Understanding the nature and implications of a motion to dismiss can help you better navigate the legal process, particularly in understanding the government’s possible strategies and preparing accordingly.

Next Steps After Overcoming a Motion to Dismiss in a Mandamus Case

Engaging in the Discovery Process Once your case has successfully withstood a motion to dismiss, the focus shifts to the discovery phase. This stage involves both parties—the plaintiff (you) and the government (defendant)—collectively engaging in the gathering and presentation of evidence to the court. In mandamus cases, such as those dealing with immigration petition delays, the scope of discovery is generally more defined and limited. It primarily revolves around the specifics of the immigration petition at hand and any relevant communications between you, as the applicant, and the government.

Establishing Factual Grounds During this phase, it’s common for both sides to find common ground on certain factual aspects of the case. For instance, there might be mutual agreement on the dates when the petition was filed and when the government acknowledged it with a receipt. Additionally, both parties might concur on the length of time that has passed without a response from the government. Essentially, these facts are not typically the points of contention.

Addressing the Core Dispute The real dispute lies in the interpretation of these facts, particularly whether the delay by the government is legally unreasonable to the extent that it necessitates court intervention. This is a fundamental legal question, and it’s precisely what is addressed in a motion for summary judgment.

Motion for Summary Judgment This motion, which can be filed by either party, essentially asks the court to make a decision based on the established facts, without the need for a full trial. It centers around whether, given the undisputed facts, the law supports one side’s view over the other’s. In your case, this would mean asking the court to rule on whether the government’s delay in processing your immigration petition is unjustifiably long and hence violates legal standards.

Understanding these steps after overcoming a motion to dismiss can help you better prepare for the next stages of your legal journey, focusing on the key legal arguments that will determine the outcome of your case.

Explaining the Motion for Summary Judgment

Definition and Legal Basis A motion for summary judgment, as outlined in Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is a crucial legal request made in court proceedings. This motion is essentially a statement to the judge from one of the parties, either the plaintiff or the defendant, which says, “Your honor, both parties acknowledge the facts as they are – such as the plaintiff having filed a petition and the government’s delayed response. However, there is a disagreement on the legal interpretation of these facts, specifically, whether the delay by the government is legally justifiable. We seek your judgment on this matter.”

Purpose and Function The primary purpose of a motion for summary judgment is to request the judge to make a ruling based on the facts that are not in dispute. In the context of a mandamus case, it’s often used to address whether the length of time the government has taken to respond to a petition is unreasonable by legal standards.

Usage by Both Parties This type of motion can be filed by either the plaintiff or the defendant. It is not uncommon for both parties to file simultaneous motions for summary judgment, known as cross-motions. This approach is particularly relevant in cases where both sides agree on the basic facts but differ in their legal interpretations.

Resolution of Mandamus Actions In many mandamus cases, especially those involving government delays in processing petitions or applications, the motion for summary judgment plays a pivotal role. It often leads to the resolution of the case, as it enables the court to make a determination based on the law and the undisputed facts presented.

Understanding the function and significance of a motion for summary judgment is key in navigating the later stages of legal proceedings, particularly in cases where the facts are clear but the legal implications are open to interpretation.

Government Response in Mandamus Cases: Fight or Settle

Settlement as a Common Outcome Contrary to what might be expected, a significant number of mandamus cases don’t escalate to the stages of a motion for summary judgment or even a motion to dismiss. Often, the government opts for a different approach and chooses to settle. In the context of a mandamus action, this usually means that the government proceeds to process the immigration petition in question. After being served with a complaint, it’s not uncommon for the government to conclude that fulfilling its duty and adjudicating the petition is a more straightforward option than engaging in a prolonged legal battle.

The Role of the Government’s Lawyer An important player in this process is the lawyer representing the government, typically from the U.S. Attorney’s Office within the jurisdiction of the federal court where the complaint is filed. These attorneys, often juggling a wide array of legal matters, will likely first reach out to USCIS to understand the status of the petition and explore possibilities for resolving the issue outside of the courtroom. This approach is one of the reasons why initiating a mandamus action can be effective; it essentially places an advocate within the government system who can facilitate the processing of your petition.

Implications of Filing a Mandamus Action Filing a mandamus action can be a strategic move, especially when other methods have failed to expedite your immigration case. By taking this legal step, you not only bring attention to the delay in your case but also potentially catalyze action from within the government to address your petition promptly. This pathway can often lead to a quicker resolution than waiting for the slow turn of the wheels of bureaucracy.

Note: This post is a general overview and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal concerns, it’s always recommended to consult with a qualified attorney.





No Comments

Leave a Comment