Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Ohio

Elaasar v. Mueller

Northern District of OhioJack ZouharyDecided November 14, 2007

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
On August 29, 2007, USCIS issued a final decision denying the application to which Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
On June 18, 2004, Plaintiff filed an application for naturalization with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
seeking a judicial determination on his naturalization application and a declaration that he is entitled to naturalization because USCIS had failed to finalize Plaintiff's application within 120 days of his initial examination as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction is DENIED, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Mootness is DENIED, and Defendants' Motion for Remand is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Remand under 1447(b) Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction is DENIED, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Mootness is DENIED, and Defendants' Motion for Remand is GRANTED.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction or Remand (Doc. No. 21) and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Mootness (Doc. No. 31).
Disposition Remanded to the agency Sent back to the agency, with or without instructions. Read by a model
The case is remanded to USCIS with instructions to efficiently, and expeditiously, complete Plaintiff's appeal.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction is DENIED, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Mootness is DENIED, and Defendants' Motion for Remand is GRANTED.
The delay claim Remanded to the agency Read by a model
The case is remanded to USCIS with instructions to efficiently, and expeditiously, complete Plaintiff's appeal.
Months pending 28.7 months from the application to the suit; 40.9 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 June 18, 2004, Plaintiff filed an application for naturalization with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
Months since the naturalization interview 32.2 months from the interview (2004-12-21) Read by a model
On December 21, 2004, USCIS interviewed Plaintiff in accordance with 8 U.S.C. § 1446
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Mootness argument rejected Read by a model
Therefore, Plaintiff's claim is not moot.

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 Sixth 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.