Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Colorado

Albalwah v. Scott

District of ColoradoScott T. VarholakDecided October 29, 2025No. 1:25-cv-01255

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
Defendant Joseph B. Edlow, sued in his official capacity, is the Director of the USCIS, which is the component of the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) responsible for adjudicating N-400 applications.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
Plaintiff submitted an N-400 application to become a naturalized citizen on January 2, 2025.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Based on these allegations, Plaintiff seeks a writ of mandamus compelling Defendants to adjudicate Plaintiff’s application within 30 days, among various other forms of relief.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court respectfully GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a court may dismiss a complaint for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”).
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
To the extent Claim Two brings a cause of action pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706(1), it shall proceed.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
To the extent Claim Two brings a cause of action pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706(1), it shall proceed.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
To the extent Claim Two brings a cause of action pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706(1), it shall proceed.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
To the extent Claim Two brings a cause of action arising under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), Claim Two is dismissed.
Months pending 9.9 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff submitted an N-400 application to become a naturalized citizen on January 2, 2025.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping rejected Read by a model
Defendants argue that Plaintiff asks them to prioritize Plaintiff over other applicants. [#6 at 9-10] But this assertion is unsupported by the record before the Court.
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
Accordingly, a writ of mandamus is not available, as Plaintiff has an adequate alternative remedy.
Nationality Iraq Read by a model
Plaintiff is a lawful permanent resident of the United States and a citizen of Iraq.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-01255
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 22), deciding the motion (ECF 6)
Filed
April 21, 2025
Ended
May 5, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
379 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 12 (dismissed: voluntarily)

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 Tenth 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.