Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of New York
Hassan v. Holder
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
At the Initial Status Conference in this matter, defendants' counsel informed the Court that USCIS had issued a decision denying plaintiffs naturalization application without prejudice on January 28, 2009. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
N-400 (naturalization)
Read by a model
On December 3, 2008, plaintiff filed a Petition for Hearing on Naturalization Application with this Court. |
| What the suit asked for |
Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b))
Read by a model
On December 3, 2008, plaintiff filed a Petition for Hearing on Naturalization Application with this Court. |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
For the following reasons, the Court grants defendants' motion and dismisses plaintiffs petition. |
| Motion decided |
Other motion to dismiss
Read by a model
This matter is before the Court on defendants' motion to dismiss or remand plaintiffs action. |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
This matter is before the Court on defendants' motion to dismiss or remand plaintiffs action. |
| Disposition |
Dismissed as moot
Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted.
Read by a model
USCIS' January 28, 2009 denial of the application was a decision which mooted plaintiffs action in this Court. |
| Prevailing party |
Neither side
Read by a model
USCIS' January 28, 2009 denial of the application was a decision which mooted plaintiffs action in this Court. |
| The delay claim |
Moot: the agency acted
Read by a model
USCIS' January 28, 2009 denial of the application was a decision which mooted plaintiffs action in this Court. |
| Months pending | Not stated at filing The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. 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 |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings |
Held moot
Read by a model
USCIS' January 28, 2009 denial of the application was a decision which mooted plaintiffs action in this Court. |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 1:08-cv-04870
- Filed
- December 3, 2008
- Ended
- July 30, 2009
- Suit's filing to its end
- 239 days
- How it ended
- Ended once the agency acted
- 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 Second 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.
-
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55
Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Ajlani v. Chertoff, 545 F.3d 229
Second Circuit, October 7, 2008. A district court may not grant naturalization under § 1447(b) while removal proceedings are pending against the applicant, because § 1429 gives removal priority.
ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Rejected in the Third Circuit by Gonzalez v. Secretary of Department of HomeLand Security, 678 F.3d 254 (2012).
-
Bustamante v. Napolitano, 582 F.3d 403
Second Circuit, September 28, 2009. Once an applicant files under § 1447(b), the district court has exclusive jurisdiction over the naturalization application until it decides the matter or remands, and USCIS may not act on it meanwhile.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance