Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Virginia

Lahrar v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Services

Eastern District of VirginiaEllisDecided May 8, 2007No. 1:06-cv-01414

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 complaint alleges that on April 2, 2003, plaintiff applied for naturalization as a citizen of the United States, and that he was thereafter interviewed by CIS officials on April 26, 2004, at which time he was informed that his name check clearance was still pending.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
Plaintiff, Abdellah Lahrar, requests an adjudication of his naturalization application
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
Plaintiff, Abdellah Lahrar, requests an adjudication of his naturalization application and seeks relief by way of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b);
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
ORDERED that defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
The matter came before the Court on defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1)
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
ORDERED that defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is GRANTED. Accordingly, plaintiffs complaint is DISMISSED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
ORDERED that defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is GRANTED. Accordingly, plaintiffs complaint is DISMISSED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
plaintiffs complaint must therefore be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Months pending 49.2 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 April 2, 2003, plaintiff applied for naturalization as a citizen of the United States
Months since the naturalization interview 36.4 months from the interview (2004-04-26) Read by a model
he was thereafter interviewed by CIS officials on April 26, 2004
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Morocco Read by a model
Plaintiff is a citizen of Morocco

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:06-cv-01414
Filed
December 15, 2006
Ended
May 8, 2007
Suit's filing to its end
144 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why.

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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.