Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Ohio

Abdallah v. Garland

Northern District of OhioPamela A. BarkerDecided August 23, 2022No. 1:22-cv-00333

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
On May 6, 2022, Defendants filed the instant Motion to Remand the matter to USCIS so the agency can proceed to adjudicate Plaintiff’s Application.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
On September 2, 2020, Plaintiff filed his Application with USCIS to become a citizen of the United States.
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
Plaintiff asks the Court to determine the merits of Plaintiff’s Application, or, in the alternative, remand Plaintiff’s Application to the USCIS with an imposed deadline for USCIS to make a decision regarding Plaintiff’s Application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Remand to USCIS for Adjudication (Doc. No. 10) is GRANTED.
Motion decided Remand under 1447(b) Read by a model
On May 6, 2022, Defendants filed the instant Motion to Remand the matter to USCIS so the agency can proceed to adjudicate Plaintiff’s Application.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Remand to USCIS for Adjudication (Doc. No. 10) is GRANTED.
Disposition Remanded to the agency Sent back to the agency, with or without instructions. Read by a model
the proper course of action is to remand this case to USCIS without imposing a specific deadline for completing its consideration of Plaintiff’s application.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Accordingly, and for all the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ Motion to Remand to USCIS for Adjudication (Doc. No. 10) is GRANTED.
The delay claim Remanded to the agency Read by a model
the Court determines that the proper course of action is to remand this case to USCIS without imposing a specific deadline for completing its consideration of Plaintiff’s application.
Months pending 17.9 months from the application to the suit; 24.1 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
the Court notes that the Application lists a “Received Date” of August 20, 2020 (Doc. No. 1-2).
Months since the naturalization interview 17.4 months from the interview (2021-03-12) Read by a model
On March 12, 2021, Plaintiff attended an interview in connection with his Application at the USCIS Cleveland Field Office.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Egypt Read by a model
Plaintiff is a native and citizen of Egypt

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:22-cv-00333
Filed
March 1, 2022
Ended
August 23, 2022
Suit's filing to its end
175 days
How it ended
Transferred
From the record
idb disp 0 (transferred to another district)

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 Sixth 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.