Churyumov v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

District of KansasKathryn H. VratilDecided May 27, 2026No. 2:25-cv-02408

Read the decision Original on CourtListener

2,914 written decisions from 2,661 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 1:24 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 1,606 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,371 (85%), measured November 3, 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 If granted leave to amend, plaintiff would allege that when the USCIS denied his Form N-400 application for naturalization on January 29, 2026, it acted upon disputed and legally deficient grounds.
Form or filing	N-336; N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model Plaintiff’s sole prayer for relief as to the Form N-400 is that the Court vacate defendant’s denial of his application for naturalization.
What the suit asked for	Not recorded Read by a model
Kind of order	A procedural order Read by a model IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion For Leave To File Amended Complaint (Doc. #28) filed March 26, 2026 is OVERRULED in its entirety.
Motion decided	None Read by a model
Whose motion	The plaintiff's motion Read by a model Plaintiff’s Motion For Leave To File Amended Complaint (Doc. #28) filed March 26, 2026
Disposition	Procedural order A scheduling, briefing, stay, show-cause or other procedural order. Not counted as either side's win. Read by a model IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion For Leave To File Amended Complaint (Doc. #28) filed March 26, 2026 is OVERRULED in its entirety.
Prevailing party	Neither side Read by a model IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion For Leave To File Amended Complaint (Doc. #28) filed March 26, 2026 is OVERRULED in its entirety.
The delay claim	Not decided here Read by a model The Court therefore adopts Judge Birzer’s report and recommendation and denies Plaintiff’s Motion For Leave To File Amended Complaint (Doc. #28) filed March 26, 2026, in its entirety.
The other claims	Not decided here Read by a model The Court therefore adopts Judge Birzer’s recommendation and denies plaintiff leave to amend to assert that claim.
Months pending	Not stated at filing The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
TRAC factors	The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings	Held moot Read by a model plaintiff agrees that such claims “can be moot.” The Court therefore adopts Judge Birzer’s recommendation and denies plaintiff leave to amend to assert that claim.

Other orders in this case

The group holds 4 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision. How decisions are grouped into cases.

Decision	Decided	Judge	Disposition
Churyumov v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services	August 5, 2025	Kathryn H. Vratil	Denied in the government's favor
Churyumov v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services	April 27, 2026	Kathryn H. Vratil	Magistrate judge's recommendation
Churyumov v. United States Citizenship and Immigration ServicesThis decision	May 27, 2026	Kathryn H. Vratil	Procedural order
Churyumov v. United States Citizenship and Immigration ServicesThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted	June 8, 2026	Kathryn Hoefer Vratil	Dismissed

How the case ended

Docket: No. 2:25-cv-02408
Filed: July 25, 2025
Ended: June 8, 2026
Suit's filing to its end: 318 days
How it ended: Ended once the agency acted
From the record: idb disp 3 (dismissed: lack of jurisdiction)

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

Supreme Court and Tenth 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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.

Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55

Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Al-Maleki v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1200

Tenth Circuit, March 18, 2009. A § 1447(b) remand ordering USCIS to administer the oath by a date certain is enforceable merits relief, and the government's request for an open-ended remand after missing the 120-day deadline was not substantially justified.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Forest Guardians v. Babbitt, 174 F.3d 1178

Tenth Circuit, April 22, 1999. Missing a concrete statutory deadline is agency action unlawfully withheld that a court must compel, while without a deadline the question is unreasonable delay; the holding still binds in the Tenth Circuit.

ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Not followed in the Ninth Circuit by Al Otro Lado v. Noem, 138 F.4th 1102 (2025).