Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of New York

Iqbal v. Secretary U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Western District of New YorkWolfordDecided June 6, 2016No. 1:15-cv-00650

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
Here, USCIS has not yet issued a decision on Plaintiffs administrative appeal pursuant to § 1447(a).
Form or filing N-366; N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
On September 14, 2009, Plaintiff filed an Application for Naturalization, Form N-400, as permitted by the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq. (“INA”).
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
Plaintiff here has mistakenly initiated the present suit under § 1447(b) in much the same way as the plaintiff in Iqbal did.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. 5) is granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
In the meantime, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ'. P. 12(b)(1)
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. 5) is granted.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. 5) is granted. The dismissal of the complaint is without prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. 5) is granted. The dismissal of the complaint is without prejudice.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. 5) is granted. The dismissal of the complaint is without prejudice.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
While by no means suggesting that USCIS’s delay in this case was reasonable, the Court agrees with Defendants that it does not have jurisdiction to entertain Plaintiffs complaint pursuant to § 1421(c).
Months pending 70.2 months from the application to the suit; 80.7 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 September 14, 2009, Plaintiff filed an Application for Naturalization, Form N-400, as permitted by the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq. (“INA”).
Months since the naturalization interview 2.7 months from the interview (2010-12-08) Read by a model
Plaintiff applied pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1427 and he was interviewed on December 8, 2010.
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. 1:15-cv-00650
Filed
July 21, 2015
Ended
June 7, 2016
Suit's filing to its end
322 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.