Mandamus decisions / District of New Hampshire

Naseef Bryan v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

District of New HampshireAndrea K. JohnstoneDecided February 27, 2024No. 1:23-cv-00341

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 Mr. Bryan has alleged facts sufficient to state a claim against the USCIS under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), regarding the alleged failure to issue a decision on his January 2023 naturalization application.
Form or filing	N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model Mr. Bryan has alleged facts sufficient to state a claim against the USCIS under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), regarding the alleged failure to issue a decision on his January 2023 naturalization application.
What the suit asked for	Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model Mr. Bryan has alleged facts sufficient to state a claim against the USCIS under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), regarding the alleged failure to issue a decision on his January 2023 naturalization application.
Kind of order	A magistrate judge's recommendation Read by a model REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Motion decided	None Read by a model
Whose motion	The court on its own Read by a model The matter is before this court for preliminary review, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and LR 4.3(d)(2).
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 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Prevailing party	Neither side Read by a model REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The delay claim	The delay claim goes on Read by a model Mr. Bryan has alleged facts sufficient to state a claim against the USCIS under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), regarding the alleged failure to issue a decision on his January 2023 naturalization application.
The other claims	Some dismissed, some go on Read by a model except for Mr. Bryan’s claims for injunctive relief against the USCIS arising under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) and the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause, all other claims in this case should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Months pending	13.4 months from the application to the court's decision 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 Bryan’s refiled naturalization application (accompanied by a fee waiver application) in January 2023.
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. 1:23-cv-00341
Filed: July 5, 2023
Ended: January 3, 2025
Suit's filing to its end: 548 days
How it ended: Ended, outcome not recorded
From the record: idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for unknown

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 First 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
Aronov v. Napolitano, 562 F.3d 84

First Circuit, April 13, 2009. A § 1447(b) remand order directing USCIS to naturalize the applicant was not a consent decree that made him a prevailing party, and the government's delay for an FBI name check was substantially justified.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Towns of Wellesley, Concord & Norwood v. FERC, 829 F.2d 275

First Circuit, September 25, 1987. The First Circuit applies the TRAC factors when asked to compel agency action that has been unreasonably delayed.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 5 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.
Patel v. Jaddou, 118 F.4th 475

First Circuit, October 16, 2024. Assuming statutory jurisdiction, § 1255(a) does not forbid USCIS from holding adjustment applications until a visa number is immediately available, so no § 706(1) claim lies against the abeyance policy; the Fourth Circuit rejects deciding the merits before the § 1252(a)(2)(B) question.

ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Reasoning rejected in the Fourth Circuit by Lolakshi Kale v. Angelica Alfonso-Royals, 139 F.4th 329 (2025).