Eldeeb v. Chertoff

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that, with respect to an I-485 application, USCIS has “a non- discretionary duty to adjudicate an application.”
• finding that, with respect to an I-485 application, USCIS has “a non-discretionary duty to adjudicate an application.”
• holding the fact that Yu was decided before the passage of the REAL ID Act did not affect Yu’s holding regarding the non-discretion ary duty to process applications for lawful permanent resident status
• finding that, with respect to an I-485 application, USCIS “has a non-discretionary duty to act on an application, a discretionary duty as to the pace of processing the application, and a non-discretionary duty to adjudicate an application.”
• finding that, with respect to an I-485 application, USCIS “has a non-discretionary duty to act on an application, a discretionary duty as to the pace of processing the application, and a non-discretionary duty to adjudicate the application” (emphasis in original)
• finding that USCIS, with respect to an I-485, Application to Adjust Status, “has a non-discretionary duty to act on an application, a discretionary duty as to the pace of processing the application, and a non- discretionary duty to adjudicate an application”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).