Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of New Mexico

Hamdan v. Chertoff

District of New MexicoJames O. BrowningDecided December 17, 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
The USCIS Albuquerque Field Office issued a decision denying Bou Hamdan's application for naturalization on November 19, 2007.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
On October 17, 2006, Bou Hamdan filed his N-400 form.
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
Bou Hamdan requests "a hearing before this Court pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) and also seeks a de novo judicial determination of his naturalization application and a grant of naturalization from this court."
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Based on Mootness, or in the Alternative for Remand and Memorandum in Support is denied.
Motion decided Other motion to dismiss; Remand under 1447(b) Read by a model
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Based on Mootness, or in the Alternative for Remand and Memorandum in Support is denied.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Based on Mootness, or in the Alternative for Remand and Memorandum in Support
Disposition Denied in the applicant's favor The principal motion was denied in full: a motion to dismiss denied so the case goes on, or relief denied on the merits. Read by a model
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Based on Mootness, or in the Alternative for Remand and Memorandum in Support is denied.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
The Court denies Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Based on Mootness, or in the Alternative for Remand and Memorandum in Support and will retain jurisdiction over the case and proceed to trial.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
The Court will retain concurrent jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's naturalization application, set it for trial, and issue an initial scheduling order to the parties.
Months pending 9.2 months from the application to the suit; 14 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 October 17, 2006, Bou Hamdan filed his N-400 form.
Months since the naturalization interview 8.2 months from the interview (2007-03-13) Read by a model
Officer Argie Navarette interviewed Bou Hamdan at the USCIS Albuquerque Sub-Office on March 13, 2007.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Mootness argument rejected Read by a model
Because the USCIS has not made a final determination in Bou Hamdan's favor, there remains a live case or controversy between the parties, and thus the harm Hamdan complains of is still ongoing.

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 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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.