Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Texas

Alsalahat v. Garland

Northern District of TexasReed Charles O'ConnorDecided November 4, 2025No. 4:25-cv-00607

Read the decision Original 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 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Defendant’s Motion to Remand (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED, and the case is REMANDED to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services with instructions to adjudicate the application within 90 days from this order.
Form or filing	N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model All deadlines in this case are STAYED pending adjudication of Plaintiff’s Form N-400 application.
What the suit asked for	Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Defendant’s Motion to Remand (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED, and the case is REMANDED to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services with instructions to adjudicate the application within 90 days from this order.
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Defendant’s Motion to Remand (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED
Motion decided	Remand under 1447(b) Read by a model Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Defendant’s Motion to Remand (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED, and the case is REMANDED to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services with instructions to adjudicate the application within 90 days from this order.
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model the Defendant’s Motion to Remand (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED
Disposition	Remanded to the agency Sent back to the agency, with or without instructions. Read by a model Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Defendant’s Motion to Remand (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED, and the case is REMANDED to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services with instructions to adjudicate the application within 90 days from this order.
Prevailing party	Applicant Read by a model Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Defendant’s Motion to Remand (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED, and the case is REMANDED to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services with instructions to adjudicate the application within 90 days from this order.
The delay claim	Remanded to the agency Read by a model the case is REMANDED to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services with instructions to adjudicate the application within 90 days from this order.
Months pending	Not stated 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
TRAC factors	The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings	None Read by a model

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision, this one. How decisions are grouped into cases.

Decision	Decided	Judge	Disposition
Alsalahat v. Garland	October 15, 2025	Reed C. O'Connor	Magistrate judge's recommendation
Alsalahat v. GarlandThis decisionThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted	November 4, 2025	Reed Charles O'Connor	Remanded to the agency

How the case ended

Docket: No. 4:25-cv-00607
On the docket: This ruling (ECF 16)
Filed: June 10, 2025
Ended: November 4, 2025
Suit's filing to its end: 147 days
How it ended: Remanded to the agency
From the record: remand order 2025-11-04; idb disp 11 (remanded to U.S. agency)

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. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

Supreme Court and Fifth 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.

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
Walji v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 432

Fifth Circuit, September 14, 2007. The 120-day period in § 1447(b) runs from the applicant's initial naturalization interview, not from completion of the FBI background check.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 2 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-13; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
Saba-Bakare v. Chertoff, 507 F.3d 337

Fifth Circuit, November 5, 2007. Section 1429 bars district-court naturalization relief under § 1447(b) while removal proceedings are pending.

ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Rejected in the Third Circuit by Gonzalez v. Secretary of Department of HomeLand Security, 678 F.3d 254 (2012).
Cheejati v. Blinken, 106 F.4th 388

Fifth Circuit, July 5, 2024. The pace at which USCIS adjudicates adjustment applications during visa retrogression is a discretionary action under § 1255(a) that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) shields from review, agreeing with the Eighth Circuit's Thigulla.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 7 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-13; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
Mendoza-Tarango v. Flores, 982 F.3d 395

Fifth Circuit, December 8, 2020. A § 706(1) or mandamus claim requires a discrete, legally required action, and USCIS had no nondiscretionary duty to administer the naturalization oath at a prison.

ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-11-01; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law. The citation index lists 7 other decisions citing it, none a Supreme Court, BIA or Attorney General precedent or a published circuit opinion; ImmCite's status does not review them.