Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of North Carolina

Jatinder Cheema v. Kika Scott

Western District of North CarolinaDecided March 27, 2025No. 3:24-cv-00093

Read the decisionOriginal on GovInfo

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
Here, Defendant persuasively asserts that USCIS may choose to adjudicate the Form I-751 waiver petition “with or without an interview.”
Form or filing I-751 (removal of conditions); N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
Plaintiff requests that the Court compel Defendant “to interview and issue decisions on [Plaintiff’s] Form I-751 Hardship Waiver and his N-400 Application For Naturalization.”
What the suit asked for Schedule an interview Read by a model
Plaintiff contends that the decision not to interview him on his I-751 petition was “an arbitrary and capricious action as a matter of law and was also not in accordance with the law” and asks the Court to compel USCIS to interview him with respect to his I-751 petition.
Kind of order A magistrate judge's recommendation Read by a model
FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, the undersigned respectfully recommends that Defendant’s “Motion To Dismiss” (Document No. 7) be GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, the undersigned respectfully recommends that Defendant’s “Motion To Dismiss” (Document No. 7) be GRANTED.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendant filed a “Motion To Dismiss” (Document No. 7) on June 27, 2024.
Disposition Magistrate judge's recommendation A magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The district judge decides whether to adopt it, so it is not counted as either side's win. Read by a model
FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, the undersigned respectfully recommends that Defendant’s “Motion To Dismiss” (Document No. 7) be GRANTED.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, the undersigned respectfully recommends that Defendant’s “Motion To Dismiss” (Document No. 7) be GRANTED.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
The undersigned first finds Plaintiff’s request moot insofar as he seeks to compel adjudication of his N-400 naturalization application.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, the undersigned respectfully recommends that Defendant’s “Motion To Dismiss” (Document No. 7) be GRANTED.
Months pending 9.4 months from the application to the suit; 12.7 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
Defendant asserts USCIS denied Plaintiff’s Form I-751 on May 6, 2024, without interviewing Plaintiff.
Months since the naturalization interview 9.7 months from the interview (2024-06-04) Read by a model
Defendant asserts USCIS “interviewed Plaintiff in connection with his form N-400” on June 4, 2024
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied; Held moot Read by a model
8 U.S.C. § 1252 prohibits judicial review thereof unless the plaintiff brings constitutional claims or questions of law.
Nationality Canada Read by a model
Plaintiff is a citizen of Canada who currently resides in Charlotte, North Carolina.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:24-cv-00093
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 10)
Filed
January 25, 2024
Ended
August 4, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
557 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant

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 Fourth 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.