Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Virginia

Ivanov v. Noem

Eastern District of VirginiaAnthony J TrengaDecided August 19, 2025No. 1:25-cv-00894

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 shall render a decision on Plaintiff Ivanov's Form N-400, Application for Naturalization, within sixty (60) days from the date of this Order
Form or filing	N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model Form N-400, Application for Naturalization
What the suit asked for	Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model Plaintiff Dmitriy Kostadinov lvanov's Form N-400, Application for Naturalization, is REMANDED to U.S. Citizenship and Immigrant Services ("USCIS") for further proceedings
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model Upon consideration of the motion, and the parties' briefing, it is hereby ORDERED that the Defendants' motion is GRANTED;
Motion decided	Remand under 1447(b) Read by a model This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' motion to remand.
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' motion to remand.
Disposition	Remanded to the agency Sent back to the agency, with or without instructions. Read by a model Plaintiff Dmitriy Kostadinov lvanov's Form N-400, Application for Naturalization, is REMANDED to U.S. Citizenship and Immigrant Services ("USCIS") for further proceedings
Prevailing party	Applicant Read by a model USCIS shall render a decision on Plaintiff Ivanov's Form N-400, Application for Naturalization, within sixty (60) days from the date of this Order
The delay claim	Remanded to the agency Read by a model is REMANDED to U.S. Citizenship and Immigrant Services ("USCIS") for further proceedings
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-00894
On the docket: This ruling (ECF 14), deciding the motion (ECF 9)
Filed: May 23, 2025
Ended: August 19, 2025
Suit's filing to its end: 88 days
How it ended: Remanded to the agency
From the record: remand order 2025-08-19; 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, and the motion number is read from that entry's text. 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.

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
Etape v. Chertoff, 497 F.3d 379

Fourth Circuit, August 2, 2007. Filing under § 1447(b) vests exclusive jurisdiction over the naturalization application in the district court, so USCIS may not decide it unless the court remands.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 14 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.
Dubon v. Jaddou, 109 F.4th 307

Fourth Circuit, July 29, 2024. Whether to decide a § 1447(b) application or remand it to USCIS is within the district court's discretion, and a remand order is not an appealable collateral order.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 3 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-10-29; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
Gonzalez v. Cuccinelli, 985 F.3d 357

Fourth Circuit, January 14, 2021. Courts may review delay in placing U-visa petitioners on the waitlist under the TRAC factors and should not dismiss such claims at the pleading stage, but lack jurisdiction over delay in pre-waitlist work-permit requests, a point on which the Sixth Circuit disagrees.

ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Rejected in the Sixth Circuit by Barrios Garcia v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 25 F.4th 430 (2022).
Lovo v. Miller, 107 F.4th 199

Fourth Circuit, July 3, 2024. The 'decision or action' language of § 1182(a)(9)(B)(v), which the court treated as coextensive with § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), does not reach USCIS inaction, so a district court may hear a claim that USCIS unreasonably delayed a provisional unlawful-presence waiver.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 5 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-07; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.