Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Minnesota

Omar v. Tritten

District of MinnesotaSusan Richard NelsonDecided May 23, 2022No. 0:21-cv-02750

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
It has been over a year since Plaintiff’s interview, and USCIS has not rendered a decision.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
On February 18, 2020, Plaintiff filed a second naturalization application.
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
He seeks an order from this Court granting his naturalization application, as well as reasonable attorney’s fees.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendant’s Motion to Remand [Doc. No. 6] is GRANTED
Motion decided Remand under 1447(b) Read by a model
The Government moves to remand the action to USCIS for a decision within 14 days, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Remand [Doc. No. 6].
Disposition Remanded to the agency Sent back to the agency, with or without instructions. Read by a model
Thus, the Court will remand the matter to USCIS with instructions to issue a decision on Plaintiff’s application within fourteen days pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b).
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
Thus, the Court will remand the matter to USCIS with instructions to issue a decision on Plaintiff’s application within fourteen days pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b).
The delay claim Remanded to the agency Read by a model
Thus, the Court will remand the matter to USCIS with instructions to issue a decision on Plaintiff’s application within fourteen days pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b).
Months pending 22.1 months from the application to the suit; 27.1 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 February 18, 2020, Plaintiff filed a second naturalization application.
Months since the naturalization interview 13.5 months from the interview (2021-04-07) Read by a model
On April 7, 2021, USCIS interviewed him a second time.
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. 0:21-cv-02750
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 22), deciding the motion (ECF 6)
Filed
December 28, 2021
Ended
May 23, 2022
Suit's filing to its end
146 days
How it ended
Transferred
From the record
idb disp 0 (transferred to another district)

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

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision, and the motion number is read from that entry's text. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

Supreme Court and Eighth 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.