Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Alaska

Benedelova v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Services

District of AlaskaSharon L. GleasonDecided April 8, 2026No. 3:25-cv-00358

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,996 written decisions from 2,731 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided November 12, 2026. Updated November 14, 2026 at 1:17 a.m. CT; the Passim connector counts the live collection, which can differ by the day's additions and retirements (which total to quote). Coverage: of the 1,617 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,406 (87%), 1,039 of them in this group, measured November 14, 2026. Some of what that search finds are not mandamus decisions. Tell us about a decision we're missing.

These are counts of past written decisions and dockets, not predictions of how any case will be decided. A distribution appears only when at least 5 decisions (or 5 dockets) are behind it; smaller groups are listed, not summarized. How it's counted.

What the decision decided

Each value cites the passage it was read from. Values read by a model were checked against that passage; values read by rule come from fixed text patterns. Read the decision before relying on either.

Agency USCIS Read by a model
Defendants ask the Court to exercise its discretion and remand this matter to USCIS for adjudication, asserting that “the agency is uniquely suited to determine eligibility for naturalization” and “is prepared to issue a final decision within 7 days of the Court’s order.”18
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
On January 24, 2025, Plaintiffs filed their N-400 naturalization applications for U.S. citizenship and submitted the foregoing letters from the Division of Elections.6
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
Plaintiffs request that this Court exercise its authority to “grant Plaintiffs’ naturalization applications,” in light of USCIS’s failure to make determinations on their applications within 120 days of their interviews.16
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Remand at Docket 6 is DENIED.
Motion decided Remand under 1447(b) Read by a model
Motion to Remand Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Remand at Docket 6 is DENIED.
Disposition Government's motion denied; the case goes on The government's motion (to dismiss, or for summary judgment) was denied, so the case goes on. Counted as the applicant's ruling; a later decision in the case can still go either way. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Remand at Docket 6 is DENIED.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Remand at Docket 6 is DENIED.
The delay claim Not decided here Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Remand at Docket 6 is DENIED.
Months pending 10.8 months from the application to the suit; 7.3 months from the application to the agency's action A section 1447(b) suit: these months run from the naturalization application. The statute's 120 days run from the interview, which they do not measure. Read by a model
On September 2, 2025, USCIS approved Plaintiffs’ applications
Months since the naturalization interview 0.9 months from the interview (2025-08-05) Read by a model
On August 5, 2025, Plaintiffs appeared for their naturalization interviews in Kodiak
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Czech Republic Read by a model
Plaintiffs Eva Benedelova and Pavel Benedela are both citizens of the Czech Republic

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:25-cv-00358
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 22), deciding the motion (ECF 6)
Filed
December 18, 2025
Ended
June 1, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
165 days
How it ended
Remanded to the agency
From the record
remand order 2026-06-01; idb disp 17 (judgment: other), judgment for plaintiff

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why. Other suits in this court.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision, and the motion number is read from that entry's text. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit authority

District decisions bind no one. On the questions this decision raises, the Supreme Court decisions and the circuit's published decisions listed here bind this court; a circuit disposition marked nonprecedential was not published as precedent and is persuasive only. ImmCite status as read November 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.