Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Virginia

Ge v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Eastern District of VirginiaJohn A. Gibney, JrDecided March 27, 2020No. 3:18-cv-00889

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
Within weeks, USCIS adjudicated Ge’s application, and Ge was sworn in as a U.S. citizen.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
After several years and numerous delays, Ge filed this lawsuit pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), asking the Court to adjudicate his naturalization application.
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
After several years and numerous delays, Ge filed this lawsuit pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), asking the Court to adjudicate his naturalization application.
Kind of order An order on fees Read by a model
Ge now brings a motion for attorneys’ fees and expenses pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”).
Motion decided Fees under EAJA Read by a model
Ge now brings a motion for attorneys’ fees and expenses pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”).
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
the Court will deny the plaintiff's motion for attorneys’ fees and expenses.
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
Ge now brings a motion for attorneys’ fees and expenses pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”).
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Ge now brings a motion for attorneys’ fees and expenses pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”).
The delay claim Not decided here Read by a model
Ge now brings a motion for attorneys’ fees and expenses pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”).
Months pending 31.1 months from the application to the suit; 37.7 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
he was happily sworn in as a United States citizen on July 17, 2019
Months since the naturalization interview 36.1 months from the interview (2016-07-13) Read by a model
He first interviewed for naturalization and passed all the required citizenship tests on July 13, 2016
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality China Read by a model
Ge, a Chinese citizen

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:18-cv-00889
Filed
December 27, 2018
Ended
August 8, 2019
Suit's filing to its end
224 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. 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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.