Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of New Hampshire

Naseef Bryan, Jr. v. P U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

District of New HampshireLandya B. McCaffertyDecided July 2, 2024No. 1:23-cv-00341

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 Immigration and Naturalization Act authorizes USCIS to review and determine whether to grant a person’s citizenship application.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
USCIS must grant or deny Bryan’s naturalization application, and file a notice of that determination, within 85 days of the date of this Order.
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
The two claims remaining in this case are the statutory delay claim under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) and a Fifth Amendment due process claim of unreasonable delay.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
USCIS’s motion to remand (doc. no. 15) is granted.
Motion decided Remand under 1447(b) Read by a model
USCIS’s motion to remand (doc. no. 15) is granted.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
USCIS’s motion for remand (doc. no. 15), which concedes liability on the statutory delay claim; Bryan’s objection to that remand motion (doc. no. 18); and Bryan’s two supplemental pleadings, entitled “Motion to Dismiss” (doc. no. 20)
Disposition Remanded to the agency Sent back to the agency, with or without instructions. Read by a model
USCIS’s motion to remand (doc. no. 15) is granted.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
USCIS’s motion to remand (doc. no. 15) is granted.
The delay claim Remanded to the agency Read by a model
USCIS’s motion to remand (doc. no. 15) is granted.
Months pending 5.9 months from the application to the suit; 17.5 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
Here, Bryan alleges that he filed his citizenship application in the Manchester, New Hampshire USCIS field office and a fee waiver application in January 2023.
Months since the naturalization interview 12.1 months from the interview (2023) Read by a model
He alleges that a USCIS representative interviewed him in 2023 and directed him to supplement his application with child support documentation, based on his assertions about having a child.
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. 1:23-cv-00341
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 26), deciding the motion (ECF 20), the motion (ECF 24) and the motion (ECF 15)
Filed
July 5, 2023
Ended
January 3, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
548 days
How it ended
Ended, outcome not recorded
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for unknown

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, and the motion numbers are read from that entry's text. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

Supreme Court and First 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.