Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Zhang v. Uscis

District of ColumbiaEmmet G. SullivanDecided July 26, 2017No. 1:17-cv-00706

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
USCIS opposes that motion and has moved the Court to remand this matter to USCIS so that USCIS can expeditiously render a final decision concerning Ms. Zhang’s application.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
On August 18, 2015, Yue Zhang filed a naturalization application with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”).
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
Ms. Zhang then heard nothing further from USCIS concerning her application, so on April 18, 2017, proceeding pro se, she initiated this lawsuit pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the Court DENIES Ms. Zhang’s motion to expedite and GRANTS USCIS’s motion to remand.
Motion decided Remand under 1447(b) Read by a model
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Ms. Zhang’s motion to expedite and GRANTS USCIS’s motion to remand.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
the Court DENIES Ms. Zhang’s motion to expedite and GRANTS USCIS’s motion to remand.
Disposition Remanded to the agency Sent back to the agency, with or without instructions. Read by a model
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Ms. Zhang’s motion to expedite and GRANTS USCIS’s motion to remand.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Ms. Zhang’s motion to expedite and GRANTS USCIS’s motion to remand.
The delay claim Remanded to the agency Read by a model
the Court DENIES Ms. Zhang’s motion to expedite and GRANTS USCIS’s motion to remand.
Months pending 20 months from the application to the suit; 23.3 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 August 18, 2015, Yue Zhang filed a naturalization application with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”).
Months since the naturalization interview 19.2 months from the interview (2015-12-21) Read by a model
As part of the application process, USCIS interviewed her on December 21, 2015.
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. 1:17-cv-00706
Filed
April 18, 2017
Ended
July 26, 2017
Suit's filing to its end
99 days
How it ended
Remanded to the agency
From the record
idb disp 11 (remanded to U.S. agency)

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 D.C. 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.