Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Virginia

Ahmed v. Gonzales

Eastern District of VirginiaGerald Bruce LeeDecided September 6, 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
This case concerns the failure of the United States Citizen and Immigration Services ("CIS") to process Plaintiff Zulfigar Ahmed's application for citizenship within 120 days of the completion of his examination.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
Plaintiff Ahmed filed an application to become a naturalized American citizen on May 21, 2004.
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
Second, if the Court finds that it does have subject matter jurisdiction, then it must decide if it should make a determination on the Plaintiff's application or if it should remand the case to CIS.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
It is further ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Remand this case to CIS is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Remand under 1447(b) Read by a model
From the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Remand this case to CIS is GRANTED.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, or, in the Alternative, for Remand.
Disposition Remanded to the agency Sent back to the agency, with or without instructions. Read by a model
It is further ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Remand this case to CIS is GRANTED.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
From the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Remand this case to CIS is GRANTED.
The delay claim Remanded to the agency Read by a model
Because the Court does not have the resources to make a determination itself, the Court remands this case to CIS to make a determination expeditiously upon receipt of the relevant background check information from the FBI.
Months pending 39.5 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
Plaintiff Ahmed filed an application to become a naturalized American citizen on May 21, 2004.
Months since the naturalization interview 25.9 months from the interview (2005-07-11) Read by a model
He appeared for his citizenship interview on July 11, 2005 and passed the requisite English and United States history/government tests.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
The Court is concerned that it should not jump Mr. Ahmed's application to the front of the line because it may not be fair to others waiting.
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 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.