Attorney Advertising  ·  bertollini.com
+1 (212) 566-3572 simone@bertollini.com WhatsApp
Privacy Notice  ·  Client names, case captions, and docket numbers in these case studies have been changed to preserve client privacy and to comply with the New York and Texas Rules of Professional Conduct governing client confidentiality. The procedural history, legal strategy, and outcomes are accurately described.
Four Atypical Federal Files

Cases You Will Not See on the
Average Mandamus Docket

Not the routine delay petition. Four files where the obvious remedy was not the right one.

Most federal immigration litigation is delay-mandamus — a stalled I-485, a quiet N-400, an I-130 sitting past USCIS's own published processing window. The four matters below are something different. Each one took an extremely unusual posture: a Writ of Mandamus aimed not at USCIS but at an Immigration Court itself; a pro bono attack on a humanitarian visa the agency had already granted to a convicted kidnapper; a single coordinated complaint built around § 1447(b) to unfreeze a disclosed-felony naturalization and two derivative family applications at once; and a FOIA lawsuit used as the lever to reopen an unwaivable I-485 denial that, on its face, had no path back. These are not the standard cases. They are the cases that show what a federal courthouse can do when the standard tool will not work.

The Files

Four Unusual Cases. Four Different
Federal Courts. Four Different Tools.

These are not standard delay-mandamus matters. Each one departs from the typical federal immigration filing in a specific, deliberate way — in the target of the writ, in the cause of action chosen, in the procedural posture, or in the way separate files were welded into a single complaint. They were filed in four different federal districts — the District of New Jersey, the District of Connecticut, the Eastern District of New York, and the Southern District of New York — and each took a remedy most attorneys never reach for. They are here because they show what federal immigration litigation can do once the obvious tool is set aside.

Case I · Double Mandamus

Two Mandamus Petitions to Save a 1974 Green Card

D.N.J. · BIA · EOIR  ·  2:15-cv-XXXXX & 2:18-cv-XXXXX

A lawful permanent resident since 1974 was coerced into signing a Form I-407 at Newark Liberty Airport during a brief travel window in 2007. Six years later he was put into removal proceedings. Two federal mandamus petitions followed — the first to compel USCIS to issue documentary proof of his LPR status, the second, almost never attempted, to compel the Immigration Court itself, through the Attorney General, to rule on a long-deferred motion to terminate.

ForumD.N.J.
PetitionsTwo — 2015 & 2018
OutcomeRemoval proceedings dismissed; LPR status restored
StrategyMandamus against EOIR
Read the Case Study →
Case II · Pro Bono

A Father, Three Kidnapped Children, and One Desperate Attempt at Justice

D. Conn.  ·  3:15-cv-XXXXX (2017)

A pro bono federal mandamus filed on behalf of an Italian father whose three young children had been taken to the United States by an ex-wife later convicted, in absentia, of kidnapping. USCIS had granted her a humanitarian U Visa anyway. The Court dismissed for lack of Article III standing — a result we expected and briefed against in good faith. A candid case study about why some cases are worth filing even when the law makes them nearly impossible to win.

ForumD. Conn.
FiledNov. 2015
OutcomeDismissed — standing (redressability)
FeePro bono · no fee charged
Read the Case Study →
Case III · Coordinated Mandamus

Citizenship Despite a Disclosed Felony, Plus a Spousal Green Card

E.D.N.Y.  ·  1:21-cv-XXXXX (2021)

A senior scientist with a Ph.D. in chemistry had honestly disclosed an old felony conviction on his N-400. USCIS responded by sitting on every file: his naturalization application, his wife's I-130, and her I-485. One coordinated three-count federal complaint — combining § 1447(b) with APA delay and mandamus claims — broke the deadlock. All three applications approved within roughly 90 days of filing.

ForumE.D.N.Y.
FiledAug. 2021
OutcomeN-400, I-130, and I-485 all approved
Time to relief~90 days
Read the Case Study →
Case IV · FOIA Strategy

Rescuing a Denied Green Card With a FOIA Lawsuit

S.D.N.Y.  ·  1:24-cv-XXXXX (2024)

An I-485 was denied on a finding of false claim of U.S. citizenship — a permanent ground of inadmissibility with no waiver for adjustment of status. Instead of attacking the denial on the merits, the strategy was to sue USCIS under FOIA for the very records the agency claimed to rely on. Within two months, the agency reopened the I-485 and approved it — a green card, in roughly the time most FOIA agencies take just to acknowledge an appeal.

ForumS.D.N.Y.
FiledJune 2024
OutcomeI-485 reopened and approved
Time to relief~2 months
Read the Case Study →
A Note on These Case Studies Federal court filings are part of the public record on PACER, and the matters described here are real. To preserve client privacy and to comply with the New York and Texas Rules of Professional Conduct governing client confidentiality, the case studies above and the underlying pages use fictitious client names and partially redacted docket numbers. The procedural history, the legal theories, the rulings, and the outcomes are accurate. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome in any other matter.
Contact

Is Your Case Stuck — or Already Denied?

If a federal immigration application is sitting at USCIS without a decision, or if it has been denied on grounds you believe are wrong, I will tell you honestly — and at no cost — whether federal court is the right next step, and which tool fits.

Email Me → WhatsApp

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. The case studies referenced on this page involve fictitious client names and partially redacted docket numbers to protect client confidentiality.

Attorney Advertising · Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome · Client names and identifying details on the linked case pages have been changed to preserve client privacy and comply with applicable rules of professional conduct · This website is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice