Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Massachusetts

Khitab v. Novak

District of MassachusettsStearnsDecided November 21, 2007

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
Under the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA), CIS is responsible for processing and adjudicating naturalization applications.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
Muhammad Khitab brought this lawsuit pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. and 8 U.S.C. §§ 1446 and 1447(b) to prompt action by immigration authorities on his petition for naturalization.
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
Muhammad Khitab brought this lawsuit pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. and 8 U.S.C. §§ 1446 and 1447(b) to prompt action by immigration authorities on his petition for naturalization.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, defendants' motion to dismiss is ALLOWED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
collectively move to dismiss the case, arguing that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. I agree.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, defendants' motion to dismiss is ALLOWED.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, defendants' motion to dismiss is ALLOWED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, defendants' motion to dismiss is ALLOWED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Defendants — the agencies and officials who oversee the naturalization system [2] — collectively move to dismiss the case, arguing that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. I agree.
Months pending Not stated 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 None Read by a model

How the case ended

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

Supreme Court and First 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.