Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Texas

Al Saedy v. Barrows

Northern District of TexasJerry BuchmeyerDecided June 28, 2007

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
The USCIS conducted his interview on November 1, 2002.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
On January 31, 2002, he filed his application for naturalization.
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
Mohaned Al-Saedy filed this action asking the Court to make a determination regarding his naturalization application under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The Court disagrees and denies the Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, to Remand (Dkt. No. 6).
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Remand under 1447(b) Read by a model
Defendants, Angela K. Barrows, Michael Chertoff, and Alberto Gonzalez, moved to dismiss his complaint, or in the alternative, remand his case, claiming that this Court lacks jurisdiction to decide the case.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants, Angela K. Barrows, Michael Chertoff, and Alberto Gonzalez, moved to dismiss his complaint, or in the alternative, remand his case, claiming that this Court lacks jurisdiction to decide the case.
Disposition Government's motion denied; the case goes on The government's motion (to dismiss, or for summary judgment) was denied, so the case goes on. Counted as the applicant's ruling; a later decision in the case can still go either way. Read by a model
The Court disagrees and denies the Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, to Remand (Dkt. No. 6).
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
The Court disagrees and denies the Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, to Remand (Dkt. No. 6).
The delay claim Relief ordered Read by a model
Defendants must provide the Court with Al-Saedy’s completed background checks and an accompanying report on his background checks by August 1, 2007.
Months pending 64.9 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 January 31, 2002, he filed his application for naturalization.
Months since the naturalization interview 55.9 months from the interview (2002-11-01) Read by a model
The USCIS conducted his interview on November 1, 2002.
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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.