Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Texas

Saleh v. Barrows

Northern District of TexasSam A LindsayDecided November 6, 2007

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
Because USCIS is awaiting the required FBI background check clearance, it has not yet granted or denied Petitioner’s application for naturalization.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
The court elects to remand Petitioner’s N-400, Application for Naturalization rather than make the determination itself.
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
On January 23, 2007, Petitioner filed this suit, asking the court to either assume jurisdiction over and adjudicate his naturalization application or compel Respondents to adjudicate his application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING WRIT OF MANDAMUS
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Accordingly, denial of [Respondents’] Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) or, Alternatively, Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is appropriate.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
denies [Respondents’] Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) or, Alternatively, Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), denies Petitioner’s Petition for Hearing on Application for Naturalization, and grants Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
Disposition Remanded to the agency Sent back to the agency, with or without instructions. Read by a model
This action is hereby remanded to USCIS Dallas District Office, and Respondents are ordered to promptly adjudicate (make a determination on) Petitioner’s application.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
This action is hereby remanded to USCIS Dallas District Office, and Respondents are ordered to promptly adjudicate (make a determination on) Petitioner’s application. In any event, the determination shall be made no later than January 4, 2008.
The delay claim Remanded to the agency Read by a model
This action is hereby remanded to USCIS Dallas District Office, and Respondents are ordered to promptly adjudicate (make a determination on) Petitioner’s application.
Months pending 26.3 months from the application to the suit; 35.8 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
On November 12, 2004, he filed for naturalization with the USCIS
Months since the naturalization interview 30.4 months from the interview (2005-04-25) Read by a model
The interview occurred on April 25, 2005
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

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

Supreme Court and Fifth 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.