Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of South Carolina

Grey v. Cissna

District of South CarolinaDavid C. NortonDecided September 16, 2019No. 9:18-cv-01764

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
The government asks that the court remand this case to USCIS so that USCIS can issue a decision on Grey’s pending naturalization application.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
Then on February 17, 2016, Grey filed a Form N-400 Application for Naturalization.
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
Then on June 27, 2018, Grey filed suit asking the court to declare him eligible for naturalization and order USCIS to naturalize him pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b)
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the court denies the motion to remand.
Motion decided Remand under 1447(b) Read by a model
USCIS subsequently filed a motion to remand Grey’s application for naturalization to USCIS for adjudication on September 7, 2018.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
USCIS subsequently filed a motion to remand Grey’s application for naturalization to USCIS for adjudication on September 7, 2018.
Disposition Denied in the applicant's favor The principal motion was denied in full: a motion to dismiss denied so the case goes on, or relief denied on the merits. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the court denies the motion to remand.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
Therefore, the court denies the government’s motion to remand and retains its jurisdiction over this case.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Therefore, the court denies the government’s motion to remand and retains its jurisdiction over this case.
The other claims The delay claim goes on Read by a model
As such, Grey’s FOIA cause of action will proceed.
Months pending 28.3 months from the application to the suit; 42.9 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
Then on February 17, 2016, Grey filed a Form N-400 Application for Naturalization.
Months since the naturalization interview 24.3 months from the interview (2017-09-07) Read by a model
initially examined by USCIS on September 7, 2017.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Jamaica Read by a model
Grey is Jamaican citizen who first entered the United States on a work visa on November 30, 2005.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 9:18-cv-01764
Filed
June 27, 2018
Ended
August 30, 2023
Suit's filing to its end
1,890 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 17 (judgment: other), 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 Fourth 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.