Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of New York
Rehman v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Services
Read the decisionOriginal 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
Within sixty (60) days of entry of this Remand Order, USCIS shall complete adjudication of Plaintiff's Form N-400, Application for Naturalization (“N-400 application”). |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
N-400 (naturalization)
Read by a model
Plaintiff's Form N-400, Application for Naturalization (“N-400 application”). |
| What the suit asked for |
Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b))
Read by a model
hereby remanded to United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
Plaintiff Siraj Abdul Rehman’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint (ECF 1) and all claims therein are hereby remanded |
| Motion decided | None Read by a model |
| Disposition |
Remanded to the agency
Sent back to the agency, with or without instructions.
Read by a model
hereby remanded to United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) |
| Prevailing party |
Applicant
Read by a model
Within sixty (60) days of entry of this Remand Order, USCIS shall complete adjudication of Plaintiff's Form N-400, Application for Naturalization (“N-400 application”). |
| The delay claim |
Remanded to the agency
Read by a model
hereby remanded to United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) |
| 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 |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 1:25-cv-06311
- Filed
- November 13, 2025
- Ended
- March 27, 2026
- Suit's filing to its end
- 134 days
- How it ended
- Remanded to the agency
- From the record
- remand order 2026-03-27; 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.
Supreme Court and Second 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
-
Ajlani v. Chertoff, 545 F.3d 229
Second Circuit, October 7, 2008. A district court may not grant naturalization under § 1447(b) while removal proceedings are pending against the applicant, because § 1429 gives removal priority.
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).
-
Bustamante v. Napolitano, 582 F.3d 403
Second Circuit, September 28, 2009. Once an applicant files under § 1447(b), the district court has exclusive jurisdiction over the naturalization application until it decides the matter or remands, and USCIS may not act on it meanwhile.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance