Understanding the government's playbook helps petitioners draft a stronger initial complaint.

The government's litigation position in immigration mandamus cases has become fairly standardized over time. Anticipating these arguments allows petitioners to address them proactively in the initial filing.

The discretionary function argument

The government frequently argues that the pace and sequencing of adjudications is itself a discretionary agency function, and that courts should not second-guess how USCIS allocates its resources among competing cases.

The security and background check argument

In many cases, the government attributes delay to pending background or security checks involving other agencies, arguing the delay is reasonable given the sensitive and time-consuming nature of that process — sometimes without disclosing case-specific detail.

The TRAC-factors-favor-the-government argument

The government often argues that ordering expedited adjudication in one case necessarily displaces another similarly situated applicant, invoking the "competing priorities" TRAC factor discussed elsewhere on this site.

The mootness argument

If the case is adjudicated shortly after filing, the government commonly moves to dismiss on mootness grounds, arguing there is no longer a live controversy for the court to resolve.

How strong petitions preempt these defenses

Effective petitions address these anticipated defenses directly — documenting the specific ministerial nature of the duty to adjudicate (not to approve), citing published processing time data, and clearly establishing the individualized harm caused by the delay rather than relying on generalized frustration with the pace of government processing.