Mandamus decisions / District of New Jersey

VU v. RUBIO

District of New JerseyKaren M. WilliamsDecided December 12, 2025No. 1:25-cv-13469

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 USCIS is prepared to make a determination on Plaintiff's application within ten days of remand.
Form or filing	N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model Plaintiff Hong Vu’s (“Plaintiff”) Form N-400 Application for Naturalization.
What the suit asked for	Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), when USCIS fails to make a determination on an Application for Naturalization within 120 days of the examination, the Court “may either determine the matter or remand the matter, with appropriate instructions, to the Service to determine the matter,”
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model Plaintiff filed a responsive letter (ECF No. 7) whereby she opposes Defendants’ request.
Motion decided	Remand under 1447(b) Read by a model requesting that the Court remand the case to the United States Citizenship and Immigtration Services (“USCIS”) for a determination on Plaintiff Hong Vu’s (“Plaintiff”) Form N-400 Application for Naturalization.
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model Defendants’ request for the case to be remanded to USCIS is GRANTED;
Disposition	Remanded to the agency Sent back to the agency, with or without instructions. Read by a model A. Defendants’ request for the case to be remanded to USCIS is GRANTED;
Prevailing party	Government Read by a model A. Defendants’ request for the case to be remanded to USCIS is GRANTED;
The delay claim	Remanded to the agency Read by a model Defendants’ request for the case to be remanded to USCIS is GRANTED;
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-13469
On the docket: This ruling (ECF 8)
Filed: July 17, 2025
Ended: December 12, 2025
Suit's filing to its end: 148 days
How it ended: Remanded to the agency
From the record: remand order 2025-12-12; 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 Third 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
Gonzalez v. Secretary of Department of Homeland Security, 678 F.3d 254

Third Circuit, March 19, 2012. Section 1429 bars a court from ordering naturalization while removal proceedings are pending, but the district court keeps jurisdiction to review a denial under § 1421(c) and may grant declaratory relief.

ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Rejected in the Sixth Circuit by Joseph Ebu v. USCIS, 134 F.4th 895 (2025).
Duran-Pichardo v. Attorney General, 695 F.3d 282

Third Circuit, August 31, 2012. The remedy for USCIS's failure to decide within 120 days of the examination is a § 1447(b) hearing, an applicant who never took the oath is not a citizen, and § 1429 gives removal priority over naturalization.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 2 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-10-30; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers Union v. OSHA, 145 F.3d 120

Third Circuit, March 16, 1998. The Third Circuit weighs the TRAC factors in deciding whether to compel agency action that has been unreasonably delayed.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read the one published decision citing this case, as of 2026-11-03; it does not treat the case adversely. That describes that decision; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
Geda v. Director, USCIS, 126 F.4th 835

Third Circuit, January 23, 2025. Section 1255(a) commits both the adjustment decision and the process and pace for reaching it to the Secretary's discretion, so § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) strips district courts of jurisdiction over challenges to USCIS's adjudication hold policy and § 1252(a)(2)(D) does not restore it.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance