Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Wisconsin

Touray, Bubacarr v. Edlow, Joseph

Western District of WisconsinJames D. PetersonDecided October 13, 2026No. 3:26-cv-00666

Read the decisionOriginal 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
this case is REMANDED to USCIS pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), with instructions to: (1) issue any further request for evidence within seven days of remand; and (2) adjudicate Touray’s application within 45 days of receiving his response.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
Petitioner Bubacarr J.B. Touray asks this court to adjudicate his application for naturalization because the government did not act within 120 days as required by the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b).
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
Petitioner Bubacarr J.B. Touray asks this court to adjudicate his application for naturalization because the government did not act within 120 days as required by the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The government’s motion to remand, Dkt. 8, is GRANTED in part.
Motion decided Remand under 1447(b); Summary judgment Read by a model
The government moves the court to exercise its authority under § 1447(b) to remand Touray’s application to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
The government’s motion to remand, Dkt. 8, is GRANTED in part.
Disposition Remanded to the agency Sent back to the agency, with or without instructions. Read by a model
this case is REMANDED to USCIS pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), with instructions to: (1) issue any further request for evidence within seven days of remand; and (2) adjudicate Touray’s application within 45 days of receiving his response.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
this case is REMANDED to USCIS pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), with instructions to: (1) issue any further request for evidence within seven days of remand; and (2) adjudicate Touray’s application within 45 days of receiving his response.
The delay claim Remanded to the agency Read by a model
this case is REMANDED to USCIS pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), with instructions to: (1) issue any further request for evidence within seven days of remand; and (2) adjudicate Touray’s application within 45 days of receiving his response.
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. 3:26-cv-00666
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 12)
Filed
July 23, 2026
Ended
October 15, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
84 days
How it ended
Remanded to the agency
From the record
remand order 2026-10-13

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 Seventh 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.