Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Washington

Ali v. Mukasey

Western District of WashingtonMarsha J. PechmanDecided February 19, 2008

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
Although USCIS had obtained a complete criminal background check on Ms. Ali before the interview, it delayed adjudicating her naturalization application because the FBI “name check” had not been completed.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
Ms. Ali filed an application for naturalization with the United States Citizenship & Immigration Service (“USCIS”) on October 13, 2005.
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
Ms. Ali’s claims were presented with fourteen other plaintiffs in an amended Complaint for Naturalization, Declaratory Relief and Mandamus filed by Hassan Shamdeen, Case No. C07-164MJP, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447 (b).
Kind of order An order on fees Read by a model
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS
Motion decided Fees under EAJA Read by a model
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs motion for attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (d).
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs motion for attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (d).
Disposition Attorney's fees An order on attorney's fees or costs after the case, counted for the side that won the fee motion. Read by a model
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS
The delay claim Not decided here Read by a model
Plaintiff now brings this motion for attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the EAJA.
Months pending 23.2 months from the application to the agency's action 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
Ms. Ali was naturalized on September 18, 2007
Months since the naturalization interview 17.4 months from the interview (2006-04-05) Read by a model
Ali’s interview took place on April 5, 2006
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Iraq Read by a model
Plaintiff Fatima Ali, an Iraqi refugee

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
Ali v. MukaseyThis decision February 19, 2008 Marsha J. Pechman Attorney's fees
Ali v. MukaseyThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted February 25, 2008 Marsha J. Pechman Attorney's fees

How the case ended

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

Supreme Court and Ninth 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.