Mandamus decisions / Southern District of New York
Saleh v. Pastore
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
In his Complaint, Plaintiff sought to compel U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to adjudicate his pending naturalization application (“Form N-400”). |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
N-336; N-400 (naturalization)
Read by a model
In his Complaint, Plaintiff sought to compel U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to adjudicate his pending naturalization application (“Form N-400”). |
| What the suit asked for |
Decide the application
Read by a model
In his Complaint, Plaintiff sought to compel U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to adjudicate his pending naturalization application (“Form N-400”). |
| Kind of order |
A procedural order
Read by a model
has filed a motion for the Court’s recusal. This Order addresses that motion. |
| Motion decided | None Read by a model |
| Whose motion |
The plaintiff's motion
Read by a model
Plaintiff Tarek Youssef Hassan Saleh, proceeding pro se in this action, has filed a motion for the Court’s recusal. |
| Disposition |
Procedural order
A scheduling, briefing, stay, show-cause or other procedural order. Not counted as either side's win.
Read by a model
has filed a motion for the Court’s recusal. This Order addresses that motion. |
| Prevailing party |
Neither side
Read by a model
has filed a motion for the Court’s recusal. This Order addresses that motion. |
| The delay claim |
Not decided here
Read by a model
The Court will address this argument, as appropriate, in its forthcoming decision on the pending motion. |
| Months pending | Not stated 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. How decisions are grouped into cases.
| Decision | Decided | Judge | Disposition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Saleh v. PastoreThis decision | March 28, 2021 | Katherine Polk Failla | Procedural order |
| Saleh v. PastoreThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted | April 27, 2021 | Katherine Polk Failla | Dismissed |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 1:19-cv-11799
- Filed
- December 26, 2019
- Ended
- April 27, 2021
- Suit's filing to its end
- 488 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.
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