forbidden by statute from denying the plaintiffs application. In compliance with Congress’s decree, the ATF has not issued a decision on the plaintiffs application, whether to grant it or to deny it. As the ATF indicated to the plaintiff in its letter of July 9, 1998, it might be capable of issuing such a decision in the future if Congress lifts the restriction on ATF funding, but in the meantime, it “cannot act” upon applications such as that submitted by the plaintiff. When an administrative agency simply refuses to act upon an application, the proper remedy — if any — is an order compelling agency action, not plenary review of the application by a district court. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1361; Telecommunications Research & Action Ctr. v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70, 76 (D.C.Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). Even were we to consider the ATF’s refusal to
holding that where jurisdiction was based on 28 usc  2201 venue was determined as per 28 usc  1391 holding that a questionnaire may be used to assist the court in determining whether cases should be dismissed under 28 usc  1915 holding that this court has power under 28 usc  1651 to issue all writs necessary and appropriate in aid of its jurisdiction and agreeable to the usages and principles of law holding that  ijinguistic consistency  required that the same arising under test be applied to the jurisdictional statute for patent claims 28 usc  1338a as is used for the general federal jurisdiction statute 28 usc  1331 holding that 28 usc  1651 may be used to compel agency action unreasonably delayed